Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-20-2005Planning Commission Minutes 10120/2005 4 r L Page 1 of 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \l02005.htm 11/21/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Commissioner Henn was excused, all others present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Gaylene Olson, Department Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS r. Linda Orozco, a resident of Newport Beach, wanted to speak on rehab houses, no ecifically in regards to Item No. 2. Dr. Orozco handed out documents regarding the ollowing: • Highlights of concerns in Newport Beach regarding rehab houses. • Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Residential and Outpatient Programs Compliance Branch Status Report. • Request for review. Dr. Orozco noted if treatment is being handled in rehab houses, they must have license from Sacramento's Alcohol and Drug Programs Department. She stated that currently in Newport Beach we have 12 rehab houses, rehabilitation or residential treatment centers, of which 3 are in commercial property and 9 in residential areas. Concerns are these money making profit organizations were originally started to address local need. Currently about 88 percent of the individuals in these homes are from out of state, not addressing local need. Dr. Orozco discussed briefly the items in he "Request for Review" hand -out, which covers the concerns of the City staffs plan to expand non - conforming use at residential property 1810 W. Oceanfront (Narconon Residential Treatment Business) from 27 to 49 occupancy. Joe Reese, resident of Newport Beach, wanted to know if residents would be notified 1khy Item No. 2 was pulled and when it would be on the agenda again so they could Irpeak on it. 'Chairperson Toerge answered Item No. 2 would be addressed tonight. file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \l02005.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/2005 r L Page 2 of 4 No other public comments. Public comments closed. OSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 14 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 22, 2005. Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve the minutes as written. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Henn Abstain: Toerge and Tucker HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Carl & Barbara Mosen (PA 2005 -136) ITEM NO. 2 2811 Villa Way PA2005 -136 se Permit to allow a "social club" for the purposes of group assembly. The Continued to pplication also requests a parking waiver of 55 spaces associated with the existing 11/17105 use. Planning Director Patty Temple stated a request was received from the applicant to continue this item for 2 weeks. James Person, representative for applicant, said applicant wanted item continued for 4 weeks not 2 weeks. Request for continuance was submitted by e-mail to staff and Commission on Tuesday afternoon. Chairperson Toerge noted his concerns with the number of public that came to the meeting to testify on these continued items and asked the staff, should the items be voted on first or open the items up to public hearing for discussion. Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney, said to open each item to public hearing individually. hairperson Toerge opened Item No. 2 to public comment. ommissioner McDaniel addressed the public and suggested that their comments ould be of more value if they were presented on the date the items were continued ames Person, representative for applicant, stated that he had advised Mr. Weeda on October 19th that Item No. 2 was to be continued, and Mr. Weeda seems to have ome contact with some of the people that were there to testify, so felt the applican file : //H: \Plancomm120051102005.htm 11/2112005 Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/2005 Page 3 of 9 1had made an effort to notify the public that this item was not to be heard tonight. ames Person said they were not prepared to make a presentation tonight, there ma e changes to the site plan and are looking at a possible off street parking site. Low, resident of Newport Beach, noted the following: . He and many of the residents in the Cannery Village are concerned with serious parking problem. . He was shocked that Item No. 2 was recommended in the staff report and out of touch staff is with the parking problem. . That all parties be aware that many of the residents perceive there is a see parking problem at many of the business and look to the Planning Commis: as the governing body to be responsible, protect the residents, and give them consideration that they feel is necessary. Reese, resident of Newport Beach, noted the following concerns: . Disappointed that he was not notified of this hearing on Item No. 2. . Upset that since 1998 this company has been operating without a use permit. . 120 people showing up with only 2 drop off spots is totally unacceptable. Th have 5 vans that he is aware of, 6 employees, plus the doctors, psychologi psychiatrist, and counselors, that is well over 20 vehicles showing up on regular basis. Where are they going to park without impacting the immediate a surrounding neighborhoods? . 20 alcoholic and drug recovery homes that this company runs are called nc profit but are doing this for profit. They are abusing the City of Newport Beach. . With the staffs recommendation on this item, we are ignoring that individuals are violating rules. There are too many bars and new alcohol rehab centers. It needs to changed and improved. Linda Orozco reiterated some of her previous comments in the opening nment section plus the following: . She spoke with the State's Alcohol and Drug Programs Department, and were very surprise to see the applicant's application stating they have 20 h in Newport Beach and that they offer treatment. . One can have a sober living facility for living purposes only without any type o treatment and we cannot intervene. If they offer program treatment of any kind they must get a state license from the Alcohol and Drug Programs it Sacramento. Only 4 houses in Newport Beach have such a license, for a total o 37 beds. The application for Item No. 2 has a 120 beds and not operating withir the law in California if they are offering and requiring treatment. . They can charge $25,000 per person for a 3 month stay, which adds up to file : / /H:1Plancomm120051102005.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/2005 Page 4 of 9 1 millions of dollars. nmissioner Cole asked Dr. Orozco if only 4 rehab centers have a license throuc State, isn't that a state enforcement issue and had she gone to the State to enfon issue. Dr. Orozco said the State looks at all the things that go on inside tt lity, they do not care about parking, or delivery trucks; any impacts of zoning is it issue. She then spoke of the City of Irvine and how aggressive they are ( )rcing their zoning code. It is similar to Newport Beach and there are no reh< ses in Irvine. Why is the Peninsula impacted? There isn't one facility in Newpc ist or in the Heights. She has met numerous times with the State and their leg rise[ and had a recent conversation with them in regards to Sober Living by tt i. The State will close down facilities that do not have licenses, but must t Pied of the homes and their addresses. Imes Person noted that these facilities are not doing treatment and are stric sidences of 6 or less as required by state law. The purpose of this application is ntinue to keep treatment counseling and other activities in a centralized location a not at this location, it is possible they will be forced to have these meetings in t sidential neighborhood. The only reason for this use permit application is because e group rooms. ten Andros, a resident of Newport Beach, challenged Mr. Person in that the ities do impact the residential neighborhood and impacts her daily. The not :)r of the people going to these facilities for meetings, on bicycles, walking, yelli screaming at all hours of the day. Upset about the people coming in from out who are not taxpayers but only here to pay fees towards the facility. She ask Commission to pay attention to the parking issue, number of individuals in the tes and many of the businesses in the area. comment closed. i was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to November 17 MOTION CARRIED None Henn None xxx Riviera Magazine (PA 2005 -185) ITEM NO. 3 424 32nd Street PA2005 -185 & PA2005 -239 The Cannery Restaurant (PA2005 -239) 3010 Lafayette Street Removed from calendar se Permit to exceed the base Floor Area Ratio (FAR) resulting from the conversion 2nd floor 3,071 square foot residential unit to an office use. The conversion wessitates 10 additional parking spaces, which the applicant seeks to provide at an f -site parking lot located at 520 31 st Street. mend the existing off -site parking agreement between The Cannery Restaurant and he City of Newport Beach. The existing off -site parking agreement requires The Cannery Restaurant to reserve the 45 space off -site parking lot located at thel ile: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \102005.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/2005 Page 5 of 9 outhwest corner of 31st Street and Lafayette Avenue for the exclusive use of its atrons and employees. The proposed amended off -site parking agreement would Ilow The Cannery Restaurant to lease parking spaces to others when the parking to available. proceeding with this item, Commissioner Tucker recused himself and from the dais. Temple stated the applicant, Cannery Restaurant, has requested their offs ng agreement amendment be withdrawn and because of this, the original proj tiviera Magazine no longer has the offsite parking supply identified. Rivi( azine needs to find an alternative offsite location. Staffs recommendation is ive this item from calendar and to indicate the Cannery's offsite parki ament amendment has been withdrawn. irperson Toerge opened Item No. 3 to public comment. n Weeda, a resident and business owner in Newport Beach, passed out the w Trial he brought into the Planning Department on October 19th, which was col handed out to the Commission and emailed to them. Mr. Weeda is there to be e for many other Cannery Village owners and business operators. Their conc( These applicants' requests would provide them with additional benefits enjoyed by all. . Would request these permit modifications and waivers be denied on basis equal application of the code's provisions. . They support the property owners and their right to be there under the code. Weeda stated he has personally supported the Cannery Restaurant and welcome: Riviera Magazine. The parking situation in Cannery Village has become ;reasingly intolerable, and more so with Rudy's, The Newport Beach Brewinc )mpany and Cannery Restaurant. If additional parking waivers were added in, the Bssure would boil over. The Cannery Restaurant's parking management needs provement. They do not need to park in the streets until their parking lot is full. Mr eeda was glad to see the Cannery Restaurant pull their request, but would like tc e a review of their parking situation. He stated the specific plan has a purpose anc there to ensure basic minimal standards that applies to all. Mr. Weeda feels there ay be some small problems with the specific plan in Cannery Village and is willing tc Ip craft a new plan. Until that is done, all need to play by the same rules. was made Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and McDaniel None Henn Tucker Newport Marina LLC (PA 2005 -072) ITEM NO.4 919 Bayside Drive PA2005 -072 file: / /H: \Plancomm \2005 \102005.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/2005 Page 6 of 9 applications would allow the redevelopment of the Newport Marina Apartment Continued to iplex located at 919 Bayside Drive. The existing 64 -unit apartment complex, 1113105 ited on approximately 4.78 acres, will be demolished and replaced with a 17 -unit, ?d residential community. The tentative tract map proposes to establish 17 vidual residential lots for custom home construction, 1 common recreational lot with sibly a pool and shade structure, 2 landscape /open space lots and waterfront lot taining floating docks (existing). Private streets are proposed. A request to re -zone site from MFR (Multi - Family Residential) to PC (Planned Community) is sought . rezone is accompanied with a Planned Community Development Plan text that will iblish development and use standards for the proposed project similar to zoning he coastal residential development permit is required as 64 residential units are roposed to be demolished within the coastal zone and the project must be reviewed rr compliance with the Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act). The project also icludes the demolition of the existing apartment building and all associated structures, rading, installation of utilities, private streets, landscaping, site lighting, site walls, rater quality improvements, access easements and upgrades to the public right of wad djacent to the project site. Temple noted the applicant has requested this item be continued to November 3, Comment was opened. Comment was closed. otion was made by Chairperson Toerge to continued this item to November 3, 2005. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Henn Abstain: Tucker OBJECT: Continued discussion of Recreation and Open Space, and, the ITEM NO. 5 Natural Resources Elements. General Plan Update oodie Tescher presented an overview of the element and introduced each goal fo Commission discussion. The document reviewed indicated changes made by the General Plan Advisory Committee at their meeting of October 15, 2005. The] Commission made the following changes to the goals and policies presented. The changes were made by consensus except where a straw vote is noted. issioner Cole asked about the wording on page 7 under Shoreline Access. M; indicated a sentence may have been deleted in error and it would be corrected. ssioner Eaton pointed out on Page 9 under Service Area 11 the first part of :e seemed to contradict the second part. Ms. Wood indicated staff we that error. Commissioner Tucker suggested inserting a phrase in Policy R1.1 relating th tandard for high rise residential. Commissioner Hawkins suggested "except as to file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \102005.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/2005 Page 7 of 9 thighdensity developments require _" leaving the number blank until staff reviews! high in other areas and comes back with a recommendation. Wood indicated staff would recommend reinstating the priority order in 10; the first three priorities have already been set by the City Council. nmission agreed. nmissioner Tucker asked about the language regarding Marina Park in 10 and proposed changing the language to "for marine and/or recre Toerge opened the Park and Recreational Facilities discussion to the public. ip Lugar, Co -Chair GPAC, advised the Commission that GPAC didn't want 'ity listed in Policy R1.10, they felt priorities should be left to the neighboncc Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission. Toerge recommended changing Policy R4.8 to "Maintain and form...." Toerge opened the Recreational Programs discussion to the public. offered. Facilities comments /changes from Commission. Toerge opened the Shared Facilities discussion to the public. No commentsichanges from Commission. airman Toerge opened the Coastal Recreation and Support Facilities discussion public. No comments offered. Toerge suggested adding "pump -out stations" to Policy R8.3 and R8.5. Toerge opened the Marine Recreation discussion to the public. offered. comments /changes from Commission. Toerge opened the Public Access discussion to the public. No file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \102005.htrn 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/2005 Page 8 of 9 Issioner Hawkins asked staff if this element had been reviewed by the Par :s & Recreation Commission. Ms. Wood indicated it had not gone to 1 ssion because their meeting for October was cancelled; it is scheduled for 1 ber 10th meeting. Mr. Lugar added that there is a Subcommittee assigned the element prior. DITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAI BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted 3 items on the last Council agenda. Council did the second reading and approved the 2 code amendments in relations to Condominium Conversion Parking Standards and Basic Parking Standard for Two Family Residential Units that are not in Corona del Mar or the coast, zone. Both ordinances to be effective 180 days from date of adoption. The other item on agenda was a City Council appeal of Planning Director'; Use Permit No. 2005 -041, which was a use permit to allow an independen massage establishment as part of an existing beauty salon operation at 272' E. Coast Hwy. The reason this was appealed was due to a concern by one o the council members that the locational restriction, as it relates to the proximity of new use to other existing independent massage establishments was an important thing that should be carefully considered by Council. Council did discuss, at a moderate length of time, and voted unanimously tc uphold the Planning Director's approval. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Committee - none. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Committee - Commissioner Eaton reported the General Plan Update Committee did meet. The meeting was called for the purpose of looking at the format of the Lan( Use Element. An 85 page document was handed out at the meeting. Ther( are a lot of items in the document and has be reformatted to feature the airport area and covers other areas in between. GPUC got into how to care over some of the statistics from the existing Land Use Element, since som( have been incorporated into our Charter. First attempt by the consultant was to put a 1 line item for each statistical area, which in some cases include, many parcels, several traffic analysis zones and different land uses. It was determined that the consultants and staff need to work out administrativ( problems. GPUC will have an additional meeting next month. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Certification Committee - Ms. Temple reported on the meeting of October 13, 2005 with the Coast Commission. There were two issue areas identified where the City was n entirely happy with the final position of the Coastal Staff. After talking with o Coastal Commission consultant and our Biological Resources consultant ai looking at other policies which were left unchanged in our Land Use Plan, file : //HAPlancomm\2005 \102005.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/2005 Page 9 of 9 was concluded this wasn't the best solution available from the City's perspective, but the City still agreed to the modifications. Council Member Ridgeway presented a power point on our City and Patrick Alford made a few summing comments. We accepted the Coastal Commission's recommendation as finished in their addendum. We received a unanimous vote of the Commission of 11 to zero. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee - Commissioner Eaton stated the Zoning Committee had not met. Ms. Temple noted that Patrick Alford will now be handling the Zoning Code project. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to. report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Eaton had one item he would like addressed and noted sc of materials presented early on the Cannery Restaurant suggested they v operating beyond the limitations of their CUP and would like staff have C Enforcement look at this. Ms. Temple stated it has been looked into and Cannery is entirely consistent with their conditions of approval. Commissioner Cole and Chairperson Toerge requested that the issue on the public comments made tonight regarding the property at 1810 Oceanfront, Narconon Residential Treatment Center, be heard at a future meeting. Chairperson Toerge asked about the report on Chevron station at Bayside. Ms. Temple stated Gregg Ramirez is still working on report. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - None. h) Project status - None. Requests for excused absences - None. ADJOURNMENT: 8:10 p.m. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //H:1Plancomm120051102005.htm 11/21/2005