Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/2008CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 20 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren— All Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager David Lepo, Planning Director Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Traffic Engineer Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Jim Markman, Special Counsel Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Dolores Otting, local resident, noted that the Planning Commission meetings should be televised as it would be a public benefit and staff would only have to do action minutes. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on November 14, 2008. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of November 6, 2008. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Approved Commissioner Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None I Absent: None SUBJECT: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan ITEM NO. 2 (PA2007 -170 & PA2008 -063) PA2007 -170 & PA2008 -063 The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is intended to implement General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.1511 Recommended (Conceptual Development Plan Area), which requires a single conceptual for ap roval NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 development plan for any residential development in that portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Birch Street. Ms. Wood gave a history of the plan that was predicated on the Land Use Element discussions on the airport area where it was decided to add the possibility for 550 additive units to be developed on the Koll property. The other residential units being considered were replacement units that could be used if some other non - residential development was removed with additive units on top of the other entitlement. Conexant, the neighboring property, expressed an interest to access the additive units. Due to the time constraints on General Plan adoption, an analysis of allocation between the two properties could not be done. Instead, another policy was added in the General Plan that required preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan before there could be residential development on either the Koll or Conexant properties. This plan is supposed to make sure that the development on the two properties would work well together as one village, there would be pedestrian connectivity, and the densities designated in the General Plan would be satisfied. She then continued with information on the proposed Plan. The Plan is conceptual and diagrams are illustrative and this plan is not a regulatory plan as a Planned Community Text would be; however, this document is a pre- requisite and we need to have the City's action on the Conceptual Development Plan before the property owners can individually take the next step, which is to prepare and submit their regulatory plans. Those will receive full environmental review by the City anticipated to be EIR's. Boris Dramov of Roma Design Group, consultant for the City, made a PowerPoint presentation noting: • ROMA reviewed proposals from each property owners; • ROMA developed a plan that met the General Plan policies and those characteristics for a desirable community in this area; • Major concern was how to insert residential development within office /industrial uses while maintaining a sense of neighborhood; • Considered compatibility between the two sites as well as the existing development in adjacent areas; • Plan meets desired open space within each of the villages; • Density requirements are met; • Conexant site is 25 Acres and the Koll Village site is 15 Acres; • 948 units total with 698 to be developed on the Conexant site and 250 on the Koll site; • Conexant site could occur with a pattern of smaller blocks, central park, variety of unit types, retail uses, different parcel sizes, and open space, it includes both replacement and additive units; • Koll site could occur with central open space, street connections and walkway connections that offer good integration with office, pa rking requirements for displaced parking integrated into the development, 5 acres of residential development and 1.2 acres of open space; range of densities are similar with Conexant site and are additive units. Page 2 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 • Each of these conceptual plans meets the standards and requirements of the General Plan. Ms. Wood noted that the Commission is looking at illustrative plans only. There is no requirement that it be developed exactly like this. As they work on the regulatory plan each of the property owners may well show us something a little bit different than this and as long as they stay within the number of units and provide the park space, they will be in substantial compliance with this Plan. The Commission noted the following concerns: • Circulation. • Placement and clearance between office and residential units; • Market may decide if high -rise; • Design of grid street system ( Conexant); • Mixed use on different parcels; • Amount of retail; • Flexibility. Ms. Wood, referencing the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, provided the following responses: • With regard to mixed use and the amount of retail space, that will be determined as part of the Regulatory Plans to ensure neutrality of trip generation; • Flexibility is provided with the substantial compliance language in Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, limited to number and density of residential units, general location and configuration of residential development, the total amount and general location of open space, the general location of parking facilities, and the network of streets and pedestrian ways. • Substantial deviations or additions to the number of residential units will require an amendment to the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. • Street grid system language could be altered as long as the connectivity between Koll and Conexant is maintained as better than what is there today. Mr. Dramov noted: • Goals in the General Plan for visitors and the public to feel welcome by multiple routes and to create a finer grade of development that feels like a neighborhood and not like an isolated enclosed area that can not be approached. Specific policies are achieved by creating multiple access points creating small, friendly neighborhood streets. Commissioner Eaton noted the language in the revised resolution and how it relates to flexibility. Discussion continued on the modification of densities, design issues, pedestrian linkages, etc. Commissioner Hawkins noted that General Plan Policy LU 6.15.11 says the Plan should demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new Page 3 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages and other improvements with existing non - residential structures and uses. He noted the concern about the numbers included in the proposed Plan and the implication that these numbers could be considered an entitlement. Mr. Dramov answered that density calculation is a consideration based on the minimum and maximums in the General Plan subject to the regulatory plan which will look at all the factors and be brought to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Hawkins noted that perhaps the Conceptual Plan would be better if it had no numbers in it. Ms. Wood noted it is essential that the number of additive units be settled in order for the process to continue. Discussion continued on trip conversion practices, amount of retail, number of additive units and replacement unit numbers. Commissioner Hillgren noted his similar concerns with the interpretation that this is a plan that would be followed. He asked about the process to a master plan of some type. Ms. Wood stated each property owner would work on their own to develop a regulatory plan such as a Specific Plan or a Planned Community Text. Each of those plans would come to both the Planning Commission and City Council on an individual basis. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern of placement, street widths and perhaps more space would work better with fewer units. When the regulatory plans come forward there will be more specific detail to address the concerns noted tonight. Chairman Peotter asked if there were other property owners who would be eligible for a portion of these additive units and are not represented here tonight. Ms. Wood answered there were no other property owners that could use any of those 550 units. Other property owners within Koll Center had been notified about this meeting. Geoffrey LePlastrier, development manager for Conexant Systems, introduced the architect. Bill Fain, of Johnson Fain, Architects and Planners, representing Conexant Systems, noted their conceptual plan takes into account block size, street and spatial clarity, ingress /egress, bucolic setting, central park, main street, club house /gym, community gardens, dog park, university extension, civic meeting rooms, media center, gateway features, bikeway plan, pedestrian connections. Docket narks, landscape Dian. massina and Dhasina. Page 4 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 The Commission noted their concern about the grid pattern, parking, similar successful development, and restaurant use. Tom Muller of Manatt/Phelps /Phillips representing Conexant noted their support of the conceptual plan as presented by ROMA. Referencing their letter of November 18'', he noted 26 of the previously allocated units had been removed from their original negotiations. He requested those units back in the allocation for Conexant as their residential plan complies with both the requirements and the intent of the General Plan. He asked for a determination of these 26 units in order to proceed with development plans that will be back to the Commission for approval as a first step in the process. At Commission inquiry, he agreed that this Plan does not vest anything. Conexant realizes that when the Commission votes on this item, we are not locked in to a number of units. Conexant is looking for a recommendation to Council of those 550 units; it means a decision has been made for both sides to rely on to go forward. Conexant has a site that easily accommodates a lot of density and development and can be easily planned for and laid out. The Koll site has a lot of challenges and it would be hard to amass a large parcel of land that implement the General Plan update vision. Commissioner Hillgren asked staff what happens with those 26 units. Ms. Wood answered that at this time they would not get allocated; however, they would provide some flexibility. As the two property owners go forward with detailed planning, maybe we would discover that one or the other would be the appropriate location for them. Commissioner Hawkins asked about what future allocation of units would require a revision of the Conceptual Plan. Ms. Wood answered if it was done after Council approves this Plan that would require an amendment to the Conceptual Development Plan, given the way the language has been drafted on substantial compliance. If the Commission wishes to change that language, you could. Commissioner Hawkins noted he does not have a problem with the division of those 26 units during the regulatory plan process. His concern is the replacement units, not the additive units. Carol McDermott of Government Solutions, representing Koll Company noted during the General Plan process, it was Koll Company noting that there were lakes, open space, hotel, a private club and other elements on their site of a mixed use community and introduced the concept of residential in the airport area. They have hired a planning firm to do the analysis as they understand the need for the level of detail to assure that units can be accommodated. The original plan showed 275 units; however, the plan in a conceptual state can accommodate 275 or 250 units. Unlike Conexant, they are not eligible for replacement units. They request that this item be forwarded to the City Page 5 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 Public comment was opened and closed. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood noted that the 26 units are to be allocated as more detailed planning is done. Commissioner Eaton noted: • Comfortable with the revised resolution; • We should not have to re -adopt the Conceptual Plan in order to allocate the remaining 26 units and it should be done with the Regulatory Plans; • Not comfortable with section of Conceptual Plan regarding consistency of Regulatory Plans as some units are not allocated. Commissioner Unsworth asked if the allocation could be done by the Planning Department. Ms. Wood answered, no. It would be better to require an amendment to the Conceptual Development Plan to allocate those 26 units than to just let it happen with the Regulatory Plan going forward. The two property owners may proceed at a different pace on the Regulatory Plans, and both should be involved if additional units are to be allocated. Commissioner Hawkins noted that the Regulatory Plan and the Conceptual Plan should have come together with an environmental document rather that what we have here. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Eaton to recommend approval to the City Council a determination that the proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan with modification to the substantial compliance section of the Conceptual Plan to read, "Regulatory Plans must be in substantial compliance with the intent of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, particularly in terms of the number of additive residential units (except for any density bonuses for affordable units) and the connectivity between the Koll and Conexant residential villages. Ms. Wood announced that the applicants have informed her that they have agreed to an allocation of 16 units to Conexant and 10 to Koll. Commissioner Hawkins noted those numbers will need to be modified in the Conceptual Plan as follows: •Page 2, Conexant Site Illustrative Development Program Note to show 290 additive units *Page 3, Koll Site Illustrative Development Program table to show 260 residential units He then proposed the following revisions to the revised resolution: • Strike the second paragraph of Number 4 and Page 6 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 Resolved,..... subject to the findings in this Resolution." Mr. Harp noted that the second paragraph (requested to be stricken) was inserted at the direction of the City Attorney. Ms. Wood noted the reference to the exemption sentence should be left in, but the rest of the paragraph can be removed. Commissioner Hawkins agreed and amended his motion. Commissioner Unsworth asked to add a finding that no vested right is created in recommending this resolution for approval by the Council. This would be added as Finding 5. Commissioners Hawkins and Eaton agreed to this addition to the original motion. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None SUBJECT: Group Homes (PA200 8-199) ITEM NO. 3 PA2008 -199 A Development Agreement between Sober Living By The Sea (SLBTS) and the City of Newport Beach that provides an entitlement for the operation of Recommend residential care facilities in the City while also containing limitations on the Approval number of beds that may be operated City -wide and within West Newport, the Balboa Peninsula, and Lido Isle, including beds in facilities otherwise not subject to City regulation under state law and containing operational standards applicable to the operation. Assistant City Manager Dave Kiff gave an overview of the staff report. At Commission inquiry, he noted that these are all homes where someone is in either treatment or sober living. He noted that the Settlement and Release Agreement is not subject to Commission review. Commissioner McDaniel asked if this would set precedence. Jim Markham, Special Counsel for the City, answered this agreement does not set a precedence. The City has an ordinance that is under litigation; and, the operator (Sober Living by the Sea) is operating a high degree of facilities within the City. Commissioner Hawkins asked about the Settlement Agreement and who signs it on behalf of the many claimants. Mr. Markham answered that the attorney Richard Terzian will sign on behalf of all the claimants with full authority as noted by a warranty. Commissioner Eaton asked about the bed count and the possibility of these Page 7 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 facilities locating in a PC text areas or zones or in one building Mr. Markham noted that if it is in an MFR zone or in a PC text zoned area that permits multiple family uses, it should accept this use other then the Peninsula and with the appropriate stipulations. If there was a building that could accommodate 48 beds and there is not another facility on the block, they could use that building as long as they met all the criteria. There is no required hearing. Discussion continued on the restrictions, exemptions, conditions and stipulations. Commissioner Toerge questioned why the limitation is based on the number of beds occupied as opposed to the number of beds provided. Mr. Kiff noted that through Code Enforcement inspections will be performed. Additionally, this would allow for some flexibility. We are concerned about people not the number of beds. He stated this issue can be brought up to the Council for deliberation. Mr. Markham added that the complaints heard from the citizens are based on the fact that there is over - concentration of people in recovery that impacts other people and essentially depreciates the residential character of the neighborhood. Empty beds don't do that; why would someone lease more space than they need to have capacity if there are empty beds in the first place? There is no way to tell how many beds could be in a duplex and how many beds are occupied. Discussion continued on: • Exhibit B, Applicable Regulations, the speck addresses not included as part of the agreement as noted in Number 7 as they are exceptions to the dispersal standards; long -term leases; • Policy regarding cigarette butts littering and recourse; Provisions of a most favored nation; Binding on Successors — language should be binding on them in their own right and definitions; • Control of one unit per block and the use of code enforcement; • Bed counts and percentages noted in the Zoning Agreement; • Exemptions; • Protected class; • Enforcement issues; • Operator's vested rights on number of allowed people on site, and the availability of parking; • Right to Assign — ability to allow the City to review; 1,000 foot limitation from tot lot as negotiated part of the agreement. Dave Kiff, referencing Page 10 of the Zoning Agreement, noted another address that is closing is 3071/234 `" Street. Page 8 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 Bob Rush, local resident, noted: • 12 beds remaining in Lido per the Agreement, there is no indication of which facility will close as there are 6 beds in each of the three facilities. • "Provided" versus "occupied" beds is an important issue. • Issue of ownership complicity with addresses continuing to operate outside of the Agreement. • Referencing a press release article, noted facilities include eating and psychological treatment. Cindy Kohler, local resident, noted her opposition: • All residents in the City should have been notified of this meeting; • There are more operators of these facilities than just Sober Living by the Sea; • The word 'parolee' is misleading as clients are given the opportunity after being convicted to choose between jail or rehab. When this happens, they are still convicted. She asked that this language be changed to, "no parolees, probationers, alternative sentencing or drug court appointees treated or housed in the homes;" • Noted the continuing nuisance problems in her area with regards to groups of pedestrians, traffic and bicyclists and recommends that Seashore be the designated route with a designated bike path; • Requested that vans be marked to allow for identification to report infractions to the police. Darleen Kuhlmann, local resident, noted her objection to the public noticing of the hearing as it affects all citizens and should have been mailed to all property owners in the City, not just the ones within 300 feet. Everyone should, have the opportunity to speak and this item should be continued until everyone has been notified. Ken Kuhlmann, local resident noted his opposition to this Agreement and the ability of the Hearing Officers to approve group residential Use Permit at noticed public hearings. He asked if any of these officers live on the Peninsula. Joel Sletsky, local resident, requested 1,000 -foot clearance from the tot lots as well as parks and schools. Ed Vandenbossche, local resident, asked about the effective date of the Zoning Agreement and the stay of Ordinance 2008 -05 pending effective date. Denise Oberman, local resident, speaking on behalf of Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach, stated their intent was to get relief from the over - concentration and sound land use plan ordinance to regulate these uses. Does not understand the Development Agreement as it is not consistent with the General Plan. CEQA should be applied to this settlement. Other operators will use the precedence set in this Agreement. Objects to the standard of one per block. There are a lot of exceptions in the Agreement Page 9 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 and does grandfather over - concentration as well as over 2/3 of Sober Living by the Sea have their beds in those excepted areas. This Agreement makes a mockery of the Ordinance and is against due process. Laurie Morris, local resident, • Asked that bike traffic have an established bike route between their designations; • Establish a van route with appropriate identification. • Then noted the dangerous issues caused by the traffic and pedestrians. Dolores Otting, local resident, noted: • Where can the 48 beds go? • CEQA exemption and change of land use; • Legality of Agreement; • Different uses besides "Sober Living by the Sea'; • Perpetuity issue; • Suggested commercial plates on the vans for better identification. Joe Reese, local resident, noted: • Agreement with Villa Way condition was to move meetings from Villa Way to Costa Mesa. • Meetings are still being held at Villa Way. • Sober Living never left Cannery Village as agreed in the original Agreement. • Parking needs to be found somewhere else and Sober Living has not honored their first Agreement with us and now they want to enter another Agreement. • Hold them accountable to their first Agreement. Dick Nichols, local resident, noted: • Integral home definition; • R -1, R -1.5 and R -2 are single homes; • Incorporate these zoning definitions. Marcia Dossey, local resident, noted: • Right to assign — by allowing this it puts an increased value on the property as there is a use on the property that is normally residential. Public comment was closed. Following a brief recess, the meeting continued. Dave Kiff answered the questions put forth during public testimony: • Lido Isle properties — Each are licensed for 6 beds, Sober Living has agreed to keep 4 people at the most at each of these facilities, which brings the total to 12, the licensed amount. • Van route- Sober Living by the Sea vans are not allowed to go down River Avenue. • Notice — one notice that was reauired was an 1/8 oaae dISDIav ad. Page 10 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 which occurred; we did the blue card mailings to every property within 300 feet, which is optional; another notice was done in the Daily Pilot; an announcement was made at the Council meeting; E- Select Alert is an opportunity to get news about anything that is going on in the City; and anybody who asked to be on an email notice was also sent a notice. Additionally, there was a full City Council hearing on this according to the term sheet, and he and Councilmember Henn have been speaking at the West Newport Beach Association, Speak Up Newport, Lido Island Association, Central Newport and Balboa Peninsula Point Associations. There are still two full hearings to come on these documents at the City Council. Posting was done on the premises; however, we don't control if somebody tore those down afterwards, which is why we rely on other sources for notifying people. Ordinance concerns — choice of Hearing Officers, one does live in Newport Beach; there is a full Request for Qualifications associated with the hearing officer and we can't be more precise than that; it is fully vetted with a Council Policy on how we deal with Hearing Officers. The Hearing Officers were chosen based on their qualifications and that policy. Distancing from parks — there is no hard and fast distance from parks in the Ordinance now it was brought forward in the Agreement itself because we have so many pocket parks you would exclude group residential uses virtually from every part of the City if you were to do that. Basically that's facially discriminatory and we would subject ourselves to a law suit regarding the entire Ordinance if this was done. Mr. Markman answered about the effective date — referencing Page 7 of the Settlement Agreement, noted this is adoptable by Ordinance and is not effective immediately. There are various things that could happen such as challenged in a referendum or a lawsuit. The earliest effective date is going to be the 915' day after passage; if there is a referendum challenging the Ordinance then you have to wait until the 3151 day after certification that the referendum effort was not successful; if the referendum effort is successful then the Ordinance disappears and so does the Settlement. There could be a legal challenge and that effective date would be when the decision has been made on the legal case and this Ordinance and Agreement have survived that legal case. While this is happening we are not requiring the applicant to go through the use permit process nor are we forgiving them the requirement of going through the use permit process should this Ordinance disappear later on. If and when the Ordinance disappears, all the time between the time we approved it and the time we found out that it disappeared, it is said to be told, which means they have that much time to go ahead with the use permit and are not abated until the fate of the Settlement Agreement and Ordinance is decided. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Markman noted a Development Agreement can only be approved by an Ordinance. This means two readings at a Council hearing and a referendum and waiting period. Page 11 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 Dave Kiff, continued answering: • Consistency with the General Plan and CEQA application — There is an existing facility with people who reside in a number of homes and if they move someplace else, would replace those people currently there. The State exemption and practice allows to stack 6 and unders next to each other and if there is anything that violates the General Plan, that is it and we have no control over those types of homes. The Agreement is protective to a greater extent than current law. Any new construction in an MFR Zone by Sober Living would have to go through the normal Planning and Building processes including CEQA. • Example for setting precedent for other operators — no one else is similarly situated; you don't have someone else who applied for the use permits like they were supposed to and have this big of an operation. We do not see any other potential for this kind of scope or operation coming in and getting a Development Agreement like this. • Control of bike routes to certain paths — this is a good point and staff will look at that. Commissioner Hawkins noted he would like to put a condition in the Development Agreement that would prohibit Sober Living by the Sea construction of new MFR building. Commissioner Hillgren suggested setting a date certain for the duration of this Agreement. Following a brief discussion, staff answered they would bring this up for Council consideration. The suggestion would be to run the term from the date of Council approval plus twenty -five years. Dave Kiff, continued answering: • Coastal Act — the ADP's ability to site license homes with an operator's consent anywhere within the coastal zone goes against the Coastal Act, too. We are in communication with Coastal Commission staff and if they have concerns, they will say so. This is not an intensification of use as it reduces cars • The 48 beds would go in multiple family uses off the Peninsula. Mr. Markman answered the assertion that the Development Agreement changed uses. This operation has restrictions on it that are being agreed to all their uses. We have dealt with the present amount of use and limited what they can put on the Peninsula with some disbursement and moved 25% of the total use away from the Peninsula. The use itself is no different than what exists today. What is changing is dealing with the over - concentration. Our definition, to which all of this applies, includes any one of these facilities that is operated in order to deal with people who have disabilities. Disability is a broader term than drug and alcohol recovery. This agreement deals only with drug and alcohol recovery facilities because that is what Sober Living does today. If they went into another business, according to our Ordinance, it would have to be in an MFR Zone and with a use permit. The ones that exist now are dealt with the use permit that grandfathers present uses. Sober Living to our knowledge does not have those other uses. If they come in with other uses such as eatina disorders, thev would have to comply with our Page 12 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 Ordinance and in an MFR Zone. Commissioner Hawkins noted the problem the City faces is that these are businesses in our residential zones. Mr. Markman noted the thrust of the Federal and State Laws that the recovery facilities are supposed to be allowed to exist in residential areas. It is supposed to be conducive to the life they deserve to live or to their recovery. That is the Federal Fair Housing Act and a number of other State Laws. We have to deal with them as a protected class. Dave Kiff, continued: • Villa Way letter — we are committed to enforce the contents of that letter as directed by the Planning Department. We believe that Sober Living is trying to fix up that parking area and staff will follow up on this matter. It is incorporated within the document. Additionally, we can follow up with the meeting addresses. Commissioner Hawkins suggested it would be helpful for the agreement to have a warranty and representation of the number of current people being treated and the types of those treatments so they are committed on paper. Dave Kiff, continued: • Assertion that the City allowed the 6 and unders to come in; the State's practice of allowing them beside, on top of or next to, doesn't make sense to us. Our goal is to stop the State from doing this now and into the future as it is completely irresponsible. This is an issue that can only be addressed at the State level. • Increase value — this is a fair comment and that happens with any State licensed facility; they have a two -year license that is easily extended and if the market for a sober living or ADP licensed home was that strong we would see that happening over and over and that would increase property values as well. Mr. Markman noted that Sober Living is capping the size of their operation, even that part we could not regulate with the Agreement. Dave Kiff recognized and thanked the people who brought this item to the attention of the City. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to recommend approval of Development Agreement 2008 -005 to the City Council with the following changes: 1. Exhibit B, Applicable Regulations — paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, the word "occupied" be changed to provided 2. Under General Constraints on Regulation — paragraph 1(b) the word "less" be changed to "more 3. Add a condition that the vans that serve these facilities need to be marked with a mechanism to allow for easy identification; Page 13 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 approval. Commissioner Hawkins said that Section 3 of the Development Agreement should include a warranty and representation regarding the number of beds currently in use by SLBTS and the types of that use, e.g. drug rehabilitation, eating disorders, or others. The maker and second of the motion accepted this addition. Chairman Peotter asked about the bike routes. Commissioner Toerge noted this is a great concept, but it would be difficult to administer and enforce and dilutes the importance of this Ordinance. Commissioner Hawkins stated that Paragraph A7 of Exhibit B to the Development Agreement be revised to exempt the listed homes only from the separation requirement but subject to all operational requirements. The maker and second of the motion accepted this amendment. Commissioner Eaton noted there are significant public benefits. He has a problem that any of these recommendations will be included in the Agreement as it has been eluded to that this Agreement has already been signed. He is concerned about no hearing on the other 48 beds and that 7 and over should be subject to some discretionary permit. This does not qualify for a CEQA exemption and we can not say with certainty that the future 48 beds could have no affect on the environment. He will not support the motion. Mr. Markman noted there is no reason staff can not negotiate with the Sober Living and incorporate as many of the suggested conditions as possible. Discretionary approval on the 48 beds would not be accepted by the applicant, we can ask. I believe that the Class 1 for existing facilities is the most important. Commissioner Unsworth asked about the Entirety clause. Mr. Markman noted this clause is meant to rule out somebody claiming there was oral conversation that could be used to otherwise amend this. It is connected to the Settlement Agreement and if this doesn't become effective, neither does the Settlement Agreement. They don't change each others terms. It was suggested to insert the verbiage, "Except for the Settlement Agreement, this.....: The maker and second of the Motion agreed to this amendment. Page 14 of 15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/20/2008 Ayes: Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: Eaton Abstain: None SUBJECT: Albertson's Off -Site Parking Agreement Status Report (PA2007 -115) ITEM NO.4 3049 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar PA2007 -115 Provide the six -month review required by the Planning Commission. Recommend Approval This item was heard after Item 1. Russell Bunim gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Hawkins asked if there was a current condition related to an inventory of employee vehicles. Mr. Bunim noted this hearing was noticed only for a status report and no additional conditions. Public comment was opened and closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to receive and file. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: None It was agreed by the Commission to suspend the balance of the agenda. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: City Council Follow -up - Planning Commission reports. Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report Requests for excused absences - ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 p.m. BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 15 of 15