Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes:J 0 • Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2004 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 39 file: //H:Tlancomm\200410520.htm 06/04/2004 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - All Present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robert Burnham, City Attorney Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Jeff Goldfarb, Consulting Attorney, Rutan and Tucker Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May 14, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting ITEM NO. 1 of May 6, 2004. Approve as written and order filed. SUBJECT: Mariner's Mile Code Amendment initiation (PA2004- ITEM NO. 2 104) PA2004 -104 An amendment to Chapter 20.42 (Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan) related to landscape requirements. file: //H:Tlancomm\200410520.htm 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 Page 2 of 39 Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve the consent calendar. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Noes: Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Group Homes in Residential Zones (PA2004 -102) The proposed amendment will establish new definitions applicable to group homes and amends where and how group homes may locate and operate within residential zones. Robert Burnham, City Attorney noted the following: The City Council initiated proposed amendments to the Zoning Code with the intent to look at the provisions for group homes to see if they should be modified to ensure that the integrity and character of residential neighborhoods is protected, but that protection is done in a manner fully consistent with the State and Federal laws pertaining to group homes. . We are presenting some proposed amendments that were drafted by our consultant, Mr. Goldfarb, reviewed and commented on by staff. The basic provisions of the ordinance re- defines some of the terms that are currently in the Zoning Code to make them clearer and to conform more closely to Federal law and in some cases generalize them so that they are not specific to a particular type of facility. The ordinance defines group homes in two different categories: residential care limited that applies to facilities that serve 6 or fewer occupants; and, residential care general that relates to the same types of facilities but serve 7 or more occupants. . Based on historic land use patterns, we are proposing in this ordinance that residential care limited (6 or fewer) be permitted in all residential districts in the City. The reason is ITEM NQ. 3 PA2004 -102 Continued to 06/17/2004 file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm 06/04/2004 n U • • Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 • that State license group homes that serve 6 or fewer occupants are required by State law to be considered as single family residential uses. . Because Federal law prohibits discrimination against the same types of uses, we believe that even unlicensed facilities serving 6 or fewer occupants should be treated as single family uses for purposes of our Zoning Code. . Group homes serving 7 or more individuals, those would be permitted subject to a reasonable accommodation by the Planning Director in R -1.5, R -2, and MFR zones. They would be prohibited in R -A and R -1 zones. . The reasonable accommodation process has specific findings that would be best for Mr. Goldfarb to explain. That process would involve a public hearing, residents within 300 feet of any proposed group homes would be notified, the Planning Director would make the initial decision and that decision would be subject to appeal or call up by the Planning Commission or City Council. He then encouraged members of the audience to focus their comments on the proposed ordinance, not whether group homes are good or bad or whether people have been helped or hurt by those facilities. It is important to keep the comments focused on the protection of the. residential neighborhoods consistent with Federal and State laws. Chairperson McDaniel stated . that the action of the Planning Commission tonight would be a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Burnham added: • We had focused on R -1 zones, but we are really looking at R- 1 or equivalent. In terms of the prohibition against group homes serving 7 or more in R -1 zones we are proposing to prohibit those facilities in any residential neighborhood that.is the equivalent of R-1. • We have PC Districts, Planned Residential Districts, Specific Plans that all have R -1 components and it would be our intent to apply that prohibition to those areas as well. • There was also some confusion, and we can clarify, in the wording of the ordinance, whether the decision of the Planning Director on a request for a reasonable accommodation would be a noticed public hearing. Wa can file: //H:1Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm Page 3 of 39 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 make it clearer in the ordinance so that there is no confusion and that people would feel comfortable that they would get noticed if they live within 300 feet. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Burnham added: The determination to provide for reasonable accommodation in multi family, R -2 zones and not in the R -1 zones. There is no reasonable accommodation for group homes serving 6 or fewer occupants. Reasonable accommodation applies only to group homes in the R -1.5, R -2 and MFR. Zones. . The justification is based upon the analysis on the historical land use patterns in the City. The R -1.5, R -2 and MFR Zones have been. characterized over the years by winter /summer rentals, by occupancies and tenancies that turn over more frequently than R -1 neighborhoods. .. It is our judgment that group homes serving 7 or more are not necessarily inconsistent with the types of tenancies and residential uses that we have historically seen in the R -1.5, R -2 and MFR Zones but they are inconsistent with the types of tenancies and occupancies that we have seen in the R -1 Zones or the equivalent. Commissioner Selich asked how this applies in areas like Corona del Mar with R -1, R -2 and MFR zoned property with many of the R- 2 areas that are predominantly single family or duplexes that have been converted into condominiums, which essentially has a single family character to it even though it is R -2 ?. Mr. Burnham answered it is our judgment that it would be very difficult to assign to an R -1.5 or R -2 district a single family character. Those residences that are now R -1 in nature were historically R -1.5 or R -2 that is multifamily or duplex type uses. The single family nature of certain portions of Corona del Mar is a relatively recent phenomena. Commissioner Selich then asked why not limit these to institutional type of zones rather than put them in residential zones? Mr. Goldfarb, attorney with Rutan and Tucker, answered that legally we could not do that as it would be a violation of both State and Federal law. He then went on to clarify: . Group home term - this term means, for purposes of our discussion, any kind of a group living situation where you have individuals not necessarily living together as a single house keeping unit in the traditional sense. It applies to all file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm Page 4 of 39 06/04/2004 • r� u Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 sorts of different living arrangements, not simply to living • arrangements where you might have people who are in need of medical assistance or people who are disabled or handicapped in some other way. . The general presumption we started out with is that residential zones, particularly the R -1 zone, is intended for a low transiency type use. It is a residential zone where people do live together as a single housekeeping unit. . The farther you go with the particular zones in the City, the higher level of residential turnover you get. . The purpose of the ordinance was an effort to try to preserve the low level of transiency in the zones by making sure the group living situations are done in areas where people are living together as a single housekeeping unit. That is what the regulations, as drafted, are intended to address. Commissioner Eaton, noting the memo of February 10th, asked about the changes of requiring a use permit to a reasonable ! accommodation; and, the differences of the required findings', particularly the one about being detrimental to the neighborhood; and, would this ordinance have any affect on the existing facilities? Mr. Goldfarb answered: • The February 10th memo originally had the phrase of conditional use permit (CUP). We changed this to 'reasonable accommodation' because this is the term that the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA) use when they talk about a procedure that is established to allow a group home in a situation where otherwise wouldn't be allowed. • 'Reasonable accommodation' is more appropriately used with the specific findings that have been included. The standards established by the FHAA for purposes of deciding whether reasonable accommodation will or won't be granted, are reasonably specific, that is there has to be substantial evidence that the person seeking the reasonable accommodation is doing so because the regulation they are seeking to vary somehow impacts the ability for handicapped persons to achieve housing or to address the handicap while in housing. . The reason the CUP standard findings were left out is because they are broad and it would be very difficult to find the substantial evidence necessary to support them. That is file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm Page 5 of 39 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 not to say they can't be done and we can look at that and try to include some language that , upon finding substantial evidence the reasonable accommodation won' be granted. . As currently drafted, the ordinance is not retroactive. Mr. Burnham added that facilities that would be covered by this ordinance that were in effect prior to its effective date would be non- conforming at least for purposes of this ordinance. That means if they were lawfully in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, they would be allowed to remain. If they .were not lawfully in effect then they would not be non - conforming. In terms of the reasonable accommodation, we will consider adding a finding that deals with the detrimental impact on the neighborhood. It will be a finding based upon evidence that is specific to that particular application rather than the type of use. The finding could not be supported by the statement that we don't like group homes. We are concerned about the disability of people, that is why we try to get to something that is more objective and closely conforming to the Fair Housing Act. Commissioner Toerge asked about the 6 occupant limit. Does that apply to family members, occupants and /or staff. How does that relate and what does the number apply to? Mr. Burnham answered that State law says that the 6 people relates to the number of occupants and does not include a state licensee or employees of the licensee. My understanding that 6 or fewer relates to only occupants who are disabled not to other people in the residence. Mr. Goldfarb then read from the Health and Safety Code Section 1566 that 6 or fewer does not include the state licensee, members of the licensee's family, or persons employed at the facility. Commissioner Toerge then brought up the number of cars parked for these facilities. Mr. Burnham answered that anything is possible and is treated under State law as a single family use. There are many traditional single family uses that have 5 - 6 cars with 8 - 10 residents. We are required to follow State law until it changes. Commissioner Cole asked if a condition regarding on -site parking could be imposed? Mr. Goldfarb answered that there are any number of conditions that could be imposed; however, if the condition has what the law calls a discriminatory impact on the availability of housing for individuals Page 6 of 39 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm 06/04/2004 • Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 with a handicap, then they are entitled to get a reasonable accommodation, or a waiver of that provision. So while a condition is imposed on the front end, it might have to be waived on the back end. Mr. Burnham added that if you are applying a specific parking requirement to group homes serving 6 or fewer, which is required to be treated as a single family residential use, you would have to consider requiring the same standards and same parking of people in other use categories. You have to think about the equivalencies. He added that this. is the first hearing, the first draft. The City has not in the past had a regulation on the books that would be very comfortable enforcing and we are just getting into the analysis of what the problems are and the issues that we need to deal with in this ordinance. There is nothing that prevents the City from first adopting a regulatory scheme that represents the way to protect residential neighborhoods consistent with Federal and state law and then to add to the ordinance some additional requirements or conditions as problems develop. We want to anticipate problems but you need the evidence that there is a_ problem as a basis for making changes to an ordinance such as this.' • Commissioner Tucker noted that there are two superior regulatory agencies, State and Federal. Is there any ability to seek an opinion of the Attorney General's Office? Do we just adopt an ordinance, wait for litigation to ensue to find out what the enforceability is of what we are hoping to achieve? Mr. Burnham noted that there is clear state preemption of local authority in group homes serving 6 or fewer, and the Federal law overlaying that has other consequences. Hopefully you would rely on our office along with Mr. Goldfarb who is knowledgeable in both decisional and statutory law in the field and is confident that this ordinance that is similar to the one recently adopted in Costa Mesa is defensible, can be enforced and if there is a situation where enforcement may be problematic that we would so advise the Planning Director, the Planning Commission and City Council if appropriate. Chairperson McDaniel asked if a condition could prohibit to staff parking offsite? Mr. Burnham answered that State law treats licensee and licensee staff and occupants as members of a single family you would have to consider applying that same standard to other single family residences. That is one of the problems in terms of trying to tailor specific conditions to group homes, you have to look at whether those specific conditions are appropriate, either legally or Page 7 of 39 file: //H:\Plancomm1200410520.htm 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 otherwise, to be applied to the more traditional single family use. The State has said that there is no difference between a single family residence and a group home serving 6 or fewer. He added that a survey had been done with Laguna Beach, Irvine and Costa Mesa in terms of how they address this particular issue. Costa Mesa has an ordinance that Mr. Goldfarb drafted; Laguna Beach does not have any ordinances specific to group homes they regulate that issue through their definition of family; and, Irvine allows group homes in all residential districts and do not have any prohibition. Chairperson McDaniel informed the audience that this is a zoning issue that is being discussed, whether you do or do not like the project is not something to be dealt with. Public comment was opened. Robert Hanley of Santa Ana Heights - asked for an explanation of the term handicap as it relates to this issue; read from an Internet source regarding group homes; transients and criminal activities. Mr. Goldfarb answered that the Federal Fair Housing Act defines handicap as a person who is physically or mentally impaired in a way in which limits one or more life activities. There are a large number of federal cases that specifically say that individuals who are recovering from drug and /or alcohol addiction are in fact handicap and are covered by the FHAA as long as they are abstinent while they are in recovery. Darren Cottriel, of law firm Pillsbury Winthrop, representing Denise Oberman and Linda Orozco and other homeowners /residents who five in Balboa Peninsula, objected to the proposed amendments and requested that this item be continued for further analysis and discussion. He then presented a letter giving details to the proposed amendments and noted: The goal is to protect the character of residential neighborhoods while complying with State and Federal laws and you are trying to figure where to draw that line on how much access of group homes with 7 or more members into the residential zones of the City. The proposed amendments go too far in that regard in giving access to the large group homes 7 or more members in the residential neighborhoods. The proposed amendments represent a departure from the minor changes recommended by Mr. Goldfarb in his memo file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm Page 8 of 39 06/04/2004 0, 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 • dated February 9th. • The main difference is they allow the larger group homes 7 or more members to be located in multiple residential zones, not just the MFR. In the initial proposed amendments, those only allowed those larger group homes in the MFR with a conditional use permit and treated equally the group residential with a use permit in that same zone. There was equal treatment, which is all the State and Federal laws require. • The proposed amendments now allow the group homes to be in multiple residential zones with the new entitlement of reasonable accommodation, which is obtained through the Planning Director rather than the Planning Commission. • These are issues that need to be discussed and researched as they go much farther than what the law requires to the complete detriment of the other citizens who live in these neighborhoods. • He stated he would be happy to work with the City Attorney to tailor these proposed amendments that would be more protective to the residents in the neighborhood while at the same time comply with State and Federal law. Mr. Burnham noted he would be happy to provide all research done to date. He encouraged the speaker to call his office to make arrangements. Barbara Roy, resident of West Oceanfront, noted that the scope of this program could not be sustained on a 30 by 100 foot lot with one side entrance that handles residential, beach, support staff, repairman, visitors, delivery traffic, etc. She then presented a letter from Bill Kovely detailing the problems of living next door to a group home. Commissioner Tucker noted that it is a proposed ordinance before us, the Planning Commission does not have the ability to say that there won't be recovery homes. We are trying to come into the area where we have the ability to regulate within reason. We understand people are frustrated by this issue, it has been going on for quite some time but it does not pertain to what is before us. We are not a body that will determine whether a recovery home should be in a neighborhood or not. That is the State Legislature, we have no ability to reverse what has been done. Comments on the ordinance are what we need. Dave Sumert of Newport Beach noted his support of this issue as Page 9 of 39 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm 1 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 they are necessary. They restore honesty and integrity in the community. He became rehabilitated in a group home in the City and is now a contributing member of society as a result. David Hooker, representing Newport Mesa Christian Center that has had exposure to the Narcanon rehab facility noted they had a great deal of benefit from participation in their ministry outreach programs. These facilities make contributions. He asked for support by the Commission. Anna Clark, a drug educationalist specialist noted that the term transients in group homes also refers to children. She then gave specifics on drug /alcohol use of children and adults and asked for the support of the Commission. Ericka Falk, an image consultant and owner of her own company noted she is a successful and contributing member of society. She then gave a brief personal history and stated her experience with a drug program in Newport Beach. She asked for the support of the Commission. Donald Fisher, resident of Phoenix, Arizona, a firefighter captain and paramedic for twenty-one years, father of five gave a brief personal history and noted that without the help of these types of facilities many people such as himself would not be saved. He concluded noting that a reasonable compromise could be reached for everybody involved. Dolores Otting, resident of the City presented a booklet of information to the Commission. She stated that in November 2000, California voters approved Proposition 36 that instead of going to jail you could go to a drug and alcohol rehab. In essence, what these facilities have become is alternative sentencing facilities. So that is something we need to keep focused on, these are not just people that are on drugs, but these are people who might or should have gone to jail in some instances. She then highlighted portions of the booklet. James Person, representing Sober Living by the Sea Coalition, noting a letter he had sent noted the support to regulate homes with 6 or more persons. His client operates homes with less than 6. He then noted a group home next to his residence that houses women with eating disorders. There are group homes throughout the City that house people who do not have drug or alcohol related addictions and the importance to recognize that whatever is done will affect all of these people. As an individual, if the group home next to my residence wanted to apply for reasonable accommodation I would support it, as I never know they are there. Page 10 of 39 file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm 06/04/2004 • • Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 . Jim Briarly, representing the Orange County Sober Living Coalition, distributed a copy of The Fair Amendments Act of 1988 and Group Homes. He then discussed the handout; Code definitions; State Building Codes; certification program; and Attorney General Locklear letter of May 4, 2001 sent to City Managers regarding group homes. Mr. Burnham noted that the City has adopted the certification program referenced by the previous speaker. Wynn Valaskis, supervisor senior counsel for Phoenix Academy of Orange County located in Santa Ana discussed the role of family and friends in the rehabilitation process. Larry Howard, Orange County resident and business owner discussed the issues of on -site visits, potential law suits and 14th Amendment rights. Sean Chamberlain noted his support of Narcanon. Following a brief personal history, he stated that these places serve a great purpose and help a great deal of people. Denise Oberman, noted that the issue is zoning. This Peninsula, has over twenty rehab centers of various characterizations perhaps more. Factually, over 11 of them are over the 7+ occupant number. She asked for additional input and research before the Planning Commission makes their decision on this item and asked that there not be 3 centers on any given block, which currently exists. Newport Beach can be supportive of these facilities but within some reasonable parameters that make sense for the community and land uses. Dr. Honey Chambs, City resident urged the Commission to delay and slow down any further restrictions on any recovery programs. Jeff Myers, local resident, noted he lives next to a facility that 6+ members. He discussed the issue of noise and profanity. Dr. Linda Orozco, discussed the issues of history of licensing problems; traffic; deliveries; location of facilities; involvement of the Planning Commission; health and safety. She distributed information and a video tape to the Commission. Commissioner Selich asked if Irvine requires a use permit for under 7 persons? • Mr. Goldfarb noted as the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Irvine that is not true. Page 11 of 39 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 John Sherman, local resident noted that rentals that have a lot of transients should be considered as well. Jerry Marshall, local resident noted that his particular group home does not allow residents to have vehicles; interns and staff either bike or walk in or carpool; group homes serve a need; the City should not make the process more difficult. Public comment was closed. Chairman McDaniel asked for a straw pole on whether to this item or vote on it tonight. Commissioner Eaton noted a continuance is appropriate. He would like to see findings about detriment to the neighborhood; R- 1.5 and R -2 are characterized as small lots with small setbacks and may not be capable of accommodating group homes with 7 or more clients. I think the larger group homes should not be allowed in the R -1.5 and R -2. I support leaving the initial hearing with the Planning Director in view of the fact that it is appealable by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cole concurred with a continuance. He asked if these homes could be restricted to only the MFR districts? Mr. Goldfarb answered that would be difficult and given the facts in this community would not allow us to do that. Mr. Burnham noted we will provide the Commission with additional information on this issue and the facts that make it difficult. Commissioner Toerge noted his support of these group homes and supports alternative sentencing that allows non - violent drug offenders to serve their time in a home as opposed to a prison. But he draws the line where any activity in any private residence or any property in the City disrespects or impacts adjacent property owners or neighbors to their own detriment. He supports a continuance of this matter. He hopes that the City's ordinances in the most aggressive fashion to protect the residents of the City from disrespectful operators and uses that impact neighbors unfairly. Commissioner Selich noted his agreement of Commission Eaton's comments. He would like to take a look at excluding the reasonable accommodation provision in the areas where we have the smaller R -2 lots. Not all R -2 lots are equal, you can have larger parcels of R -2 housing and it is not the same as the small lots in Corona del Mar or other areas of the City that are subdivided in that manner. file: //H:1Planco=m 200410520.htm Page 12 of 39 06/04/2004 n u 0 f� Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 •Commissioner Kiser noted his support of a continuance given the intricacies of the Federal and State law impacting the subject and difficulties that our counsel has as to what would be enforceable and the great interest of the community, we need to look at it very closely and hear what everyone- has to say before making a decision. Chairperson McDaniel noted his support of a continuance in order to read the materials presented tonight and allow time for responses to comments received. Following a brief discussion, it was decided to continue this matter to June 17, 2004 given the amount of testimony and materials presented to allow for additional research and time for people to contact the City if they wish to discuss this matter. Commissioner Tucker asked if there was any State inventory of licensee entities as to numbers in Orange County and the occupancies. He would like to know if we are being asked to host more people than other jurisdictions. Is there any limit on how many of these facilities can be on any given block? There was a lot of information submitted tonight, and he would like to see a response to this information and more specifically to insure that this 0 information is correct. Mr. Burnham noted he would provide as much information as possible. Mr. Goldfarb noted that with the exception of one case, every case that has looked at a City's attempt to limit the number of group homes that can be located within a particular area has failed in the court. There is one case where the court allowed the City to establish those regulations but it related to a campus like structure that was created and what the court concluded it was in essence creating sort of a 'ghettoization' of people in recovery. Motion was made by Chairperson McDaniel to continue this item to June 17, 2004. Commissioner Selich noted that there has been a lot of representation made in the materials received that the City is not following its zoning because a number of different publications from the State refer to unlicensed facilities as meeting zoning standards. Zoning encompasses a lot of things and the only way we would be able to get into the business of regulating them would be if we were to develop an ordinance to have a Use Permit for •every family home in the City. Then everyone would be treated equally, but it would be an impossible situation to administer. The City has been totally usurped by State and Federal law in this so we have no ability to deal with those size homes. Page 13 of 39 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm 06/04/2004 Planning Commission. Minutes 05/20/2004 Page 14 of 39 file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm 06/04/2004 n LJ • Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Noes: Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None None SUBJECT: Ozumo Restaurant (PA2004 -045) ITEM NO. 4 849 Newport Center Drive PA2004 -045 This is a request for the approval of a Use Permit to allow a Approved permitted restaurant to operate with a Type 47 (On -Sale, General, Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage License. Mr. Michael Cho, representing the applicant Ozumo, stated that he would like to amend condition 5 regarding background music outside the building. The floor plan for the restaurant has a sizeable patio that requires some sort of amplified background music. Any noise would have to comply with the City's standards. There are no residential structures nearby and the restaurant is buffered between Newport Center Drive and the large parking structure. The Irvine Company is restrictive on the type of outdoor amplification that is permitted. There will be no live music on the patio. The only entertainment would be a DJ running music in the background inside the restaurant. There is no audible paging system planned. Commissioner Toerge noted that we could delete music and/or from the condition 5. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve Use Permit No. 2004 -007 (PA2004 -045) subject to the findings and conditions with the change to condition 5. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Harrington Residence (PA2004 -051) I ITEM NO. 5 file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm 06/04/2004 n LJ • Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 Page 15 of 39 • 1931 Port Laurent Place PA2004 -051 Appeal of the Modifications Committee's approval of Modification Approved Permit No. 2004 -020 to allow the encroachment of a free - standing fireplace in the rear setback and consideration of an encroachment of a built -in barbeque unit in the rear and side yard setbacks. Bruce Harrington, of 1931 Port Laurent Place noted that his lot is unique in size, location and configuration. He provided written materials and noted that the surrounding property is approximately 20 feet below his property and the homeowner to the rear has approved the location of the fireplace. What remains is the height of the fireplace and an approximate 7 1/2 square foot comer of the proposed fireplace that further encroaches pass the five foot line that has been approved by staff. He then suggested a change to condition 3 that the fireplace maintain a minimum rear yard setback of 2.5 feet rather than the 5 feet suggested and approved by the Modifications Committee. A change to condition 4 that the height of the fireplace by measured no higher than 9 feet from the, finished floor grade of the finished structure rather than the 8 feet measured from the existing grade directly below it. The height of the fireplace is controlled in the neighborhood by the CC and R's of the Homeowners Association. The architectural control committee has approved the fireplace at 9 feet, staff insists that it only be 8 feet because of the 8 foot height limitation on the perimeter fences. The CC and R's call out that freestanding structures such as fireplaces and trellises can be up to 9 feet high. He asked that the encroachment be allowed to be 7.5 feet from the 10 foot setback and that the height of the fireplace by 9 feet from the finished floor grade of the house rather than 8 feet from finished grade of the back yard itself. At Commission inquiry, he added: • There are two levels in the ground floor of the house, one sets up by 18 inches. He would use the floor slab grade of the house, which is probably four to six inches higher than the finished grade of the finished landscaping of the back yard. • Condition 9 is acceptable. • Verified that the Neighbor Awareness Form should show the neighbor as being at 1801 not 1807 Newport Hills Drive East. • Commissioner Selich asked staff why they were opposed to the encroachment of the fireplace. Ms. Temple stated that the Modification Committee tries to file: //H:\Planeomm \2004 \0520.htm 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 maintain some level of consistency on deciding the side and rear yard encroachments in terms of both dimension and height. A five foot encroachment or 50% into a required 10 foot rear yard setback to them seemed a reasonable request. The Planning Commission can however draw their own conclusions. Commissioner Selich noted he had visited the site and the grade elevation difference between 1801 Newport Hills behind the homeowner where the fireplace is going in and the fact that it is going next to a greenbelt area, does not see a problem with the encroachment. He supports the applicant's request. Commissioner Kiser noted his support of the Modification Committee citing that they see hundreds of these situations, unfortunately the Planning Commission sees only a few. The findings and what was allowed appear to be consistent with several other decisions in the neighborhood. He noted his concern of moving from a standard of the grade to the floor level of the home, whether that is underneath the slab of the home or on top of the slab of the home, will lead to essentially forcing the Modification Committee to have a new standard set for that community. Since there is so much pressure in that community for building these sorts of structures, he falls back on what is a very consistent decision and not allow further encroachment into the setback nor further height on the chimney. Chairman McDaniel noted his agreement of Commissioner Kiser's comments and seldom overrules the Modification Committee. He noted his concern that this may set a precedent and favors sustaining the decision of the Modification Committee. Commissioner Toerge noted he generally supports the Modification Committee in their findings. There are going to be some circumstances where this type of encroachment would not be suitable. Because this property is adjacent to a greenbelt, the elevation of the property most adjacent to the barbecue is 20 feet below the site and because all adjacent neighbors have given a written statement that they have no objection he is going to vote to overrule the Modification Committee and support the applicant' appeal. Commissioner Cole noted his support of the applicant for previous comments: Commissioner Eaton noted his support of the horizontal encroachment as it is only one corner; however he does not support the height encroachment. Commissioner Tucker noted that he defers to the association Page 16 of 39 file: //H:\Planco= \2004 \0520.htm 1 06/04/2004 9 • i Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 • i support of the height of the fireplace and made the motion to overrule the decision of the Modification Committee and approve the Modification with the changes as requested by the applicant. 0 0 Toerge, Selich, and Tucker i. McDaniel and Kiser SUBJECT: Corporate Plaza PC Text Amendment (PA2004 -� 073) Proposed amendment to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Plan to clarify the "permitted Uses" section related to medical office uses and to amend the parking regulations to make them consistent with the parking pool regulations specified in Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Chairman McDaniel noted the changes received and recommended by staff. Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner noted: . Staff has revised recommendations to Corporate Plaza that are incorporated in the memorandum presented this evening. Revisions have been made to the resolution and the exhibit accordingly. Staff reorganized where the provision for medical office uses is located within the Planned Community document. Presently it is the section where the statistical analysis is cited, we want to move that to the permitted uses section so that it is easier for the public and Planning Department to administer. . There is a limitation on medical use in Corporate Plaza of 79, 847 gross square feet. We are not advocating changes to that. That medical /dental office use is presently allocated to Building Sites 8, 9, 11, and 22. The proposed change is to add Building Site 2 and 3 to those that allow medical office use, granting 2,100 gross square feet for Site 2 and 3,100 gross square feet for Site 3. These numbers are specific for some pending plan checks for medical /dental office use for those two buildings only. file : //14: \Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm Page 17 of 39 ITEM NO.6 PA2004 -073 Recommended for approval 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 The existing Sites 9, 10, 11 and 22 are owned by the Irvine Company and they are not supportive of any other changes to this. They want to retain the medical /dental office use rights for their purposes on their building sites. The original recommendation would have allowed the medical/dental office use to go to any building; however, The Irvine Company does take objection to that. Therefore, this amended recommendation is a compromise proposal to allow those pending plan checks we have currently under review. Due to the organization of the document, some mistakes were made and staff wants to be able to accommodate those existing plan checks if possible through this proposed amendment. The other change to the document is the parking requirement. There is a specific revision that is based upon a gross square footage calculation and we are amending /eliminating that to make it consistent with the way the parking pool is based on the Zoning Code. This parking provision will be consistent with how we administer the same provisions for other properties in any office areas. . At Commission inquiry he noted that the City would retain the prohibition of medical /dental offices on any other building site, which is a current provision of the Planned Community Text. Commissioner Eaton asked if the revised recommendation is based solely on the ownership of the buildings by The Irvine Company and other owners. What about the other building sites that would have originally been able to convert, but under the revised recommendation will not? The original staff report noted that there was only 3,000 additional square feet of building that could be built. Building 11 would be the only other site that would be allowed to be built and that is where the most excess parking is now. If there was an additional building there, would it only be 3,000 square feet? Mr. Campbell answered that Building Site 2 and 3 are not owned by The Irvine Company. The other 4 building sites are. Ms. Temple noted the staff did not research the individual ownership of each parcel. Mr. Campbell answered that is correct, the building on site 11 would only be 3,000 square feet. Public comment was opened. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm Page 18 of 39 06/04/2004 0 E Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 Bill Lange, owner of Building 17 in Corporate Plaza, stated that he has over 12,000 square feet of medical /dental office in his building at the expense of well over 1 million dollars in tenant improvements. He noted his concern that this item would lock medical uses in The Irvine Company buildings and that other buildings in Corporate Plaza would be denied that medical use. Medical use traditionally equates to more rental and certainly did in his building. He is here tonight to protect himself to assure that in the future he could have more medical /dental use as well as all the other building owners, as this looks like a grab. Mr. Campbell noted that the City is aware that there are other medical office uses in 17 Corporate Plaza and have noted that this would be a legal non - conforming use. It would be allowed to remain there indefinitely. If it was converted to some other general office use, they could not revert back and they would not be able to expand the use at that location. Mr. Lange noted that if there is a certain amount allocated for medical then other buildings should be allowed to share that benefit. They should not be locked out. Mr. Campbell noted that the current Planned Community Text locks that into place presently for the benefit of The Irvine Company. The reason this amendment is being put forward is that we have medical uses where they really shouldn't be and staff is trying to alleviate a very pressing circumstance where two proposed tenants are going in, and allowing the ones who are already in, that shouldn't be there, to remain indefinitely. We are not changing that particular policy of the Planned Community text. Commissioner Selich affirmed that in Building 17, those medical uses got in but they weren't supposed to get in there under the original Planned Community Text. Otherwise it would disturb him that the City would be taking something and making it legally nonconforming. At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted that the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District Regulations was attached to the memorandum as Exhibit A. The space allocated to The Irvine Company is presently in the Statistical Analysis Section. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Tucker noted that nothing is happening to Building 17 other than the fact the medical that is there now is vested. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Eaton noted that it is not fair to lock in a substantial f ile: //H:\Plancomm1200410520.htm Page 19 of 39 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 portion of medical /dental office use conversion ability to only four buildings, one.of which is not built and the other three of which are fully parked, particularly the two on Avocado. It is more fair to the numerous owners in this plaza and more sensible in terms of where the excess parking is to follow the original recommendation. Commissioner Selich asked if the City was under any legal obligation to give certain allocation at this site. Ms. Clauson answered, no. Commissioner Tucker noted that since this is a staff item to clean up and make more sense out of the organization of the Planned Community Text, this is not the forum to start rearranging the rights of the parties under the existing zoning. He would not be in favor of changing staffs recommendation by way of what was handed out tonight. Motion was made by Chairperson McDaniel recommending approval of the revised amendment to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District Regulations to the City Council by adopting the attached resolution. Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: Eaton and Cole, Absent: None Abstain. None SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion (PA2002 -265) General Plan Amendment, Zone Change & Use Permit 600 St. Andrews Road Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Use Permit for the replacement and construction of additional buildings and a below grade parking garage. The General Plan Amendment involves an increase of the maximum allowable building area with no change to the existing land use designation. The Zone Change would change the zoning district from R -2 & R -1 to GEIF to be consistent with the existing General Plan, Land Use Element designation. The Use Permit involves the alteration of existing buildings, replacement of the existing fellowship hall and classroom building and the construction of a new multi - purpose gymnasium and youth center. The Use Permit also considers setting the maximum allowable building height of 40 feet for the two proposed file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm Page 20 of 39 ITEM NO.7 PA2002 -265 Continued to 06103/2004 06/04/2004 0 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 Chairperson McDaniel noted that: • the applicant would be giving a 15 minute presentation; • this is zoning issues only and there will be no action taken by the Planning Commission tonight; • this item will be continued to at least one more meeting; . quite a number of emails and faxes have been received and he' encouraged members of the audience to send materials in lieu of speaking if they felt they would not be able to speak; • the speakers are limited to two minutes; • we do not have the response to comments on the EIR so any comments on the EIR should be taken up at the next meeting; and, • following the presentation we will be taking a break. Mr. Campbell noted that the responses to comments on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are not available this evening. Staff hopes to have those available by next Friday. If there are any questions on the EIR, both the traffic consultant and the environmental consultant are here and available. Ms. Temple noted that this is a General Plan Amendment, Zoning change and Use Permit land use applications related to a proposed project before the City. An Environmental Impact Report is an informational document used to provide information to the decision makers as they make decisions on those specific applications. It has been common in the past that the introductory meeting attempts to receive a full presentation on the project with all comments so that the Planning Commission and staff can understand the issues. related to the specific project. These comments can be made using the information from the EIR, and the decision to certify that EIR by the Planning Commission will be made in light of all the information including the response to comments. Specific comments can occur tonight or any time. However, it is the intent of the Planning Commission to discuss the EIR at the next meeting. Chairman McDaniel asked for specifics on any issue in order for a staff response either tonight or at the next meeting. . Commissioner Tucker stated that the next meeting will be on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and we will deal with CEQA issues and make a decision as to re- circulating the EIR or not and file: //H:\Piancomm \2004 \0520.htm Page 21 of 39 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 then respond to the various issues. If you want to comment on the EIR tonight, go ahead, but there will be another meeting where that is only what we want to receive. At that time, general comments will be of no value. The meeting tonight is for general comments. Mr. Ken Williams, chairman of the Building Committee at St. Andrews, thanked the Commission for the opportunity. He then explained that three speakers would be giving testimony, Senior Pastor John Huffman, Jim Burchfield, Minister of Youth and Family, and Phillip Bettencourt who will give an overview of the application. Mr. John Huffman, Senior Pastor, noted the following: . St. Andrews has for the past half century served this community. . It was one of the founding influences for Hoag Presbyterian Hospital. . They want to continue serving this community but they need to expand. . The last time they expanded, they were not able to include a youth and family center and that is what drives this present request. • Additional parking can be provided if this is needed. • This is a refurbishment of the facility, and they have no desire to move to another site. Mr. Jim Burchfield, Minister of Youth and Family, noted the following: . The need for the Youth and'Family center is based on space and improving the type of space they have currently. . The Church is currently operating at capacity for the youth. . The activities that occur outside on campus is a source of frustration for the neighbors and so we want to build this gymnasium, to bring that activity inside. . The proposed gymnasium will allow the students the kinds of motion, activity and noise that they need. . We have a desire to serve the community with a safe place and sanctuary for the children. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm Page 22 of 39 06/04/2004 0 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 • The most dangerous times for the youth in the community are between the hours of 3 and 6. Our desire is to provide a safe place for them to gather and recreate. • A large number of working parents use our church for after school day care and educational facilities, and we would like to upgrade those facilities for the betterment of all. • We want to serve the parents and youth with safe and alternative uses on our campuses by upgrading our existing facilities and adding a gymnasium. Mr. Phillip Bettencourt, representing St. Andrews, made the following Power Point presentation: • The master plan goal is a new parking facility for 150 additional cars; a new youth and family center providing handicap accessibility, earthquake resistance and soundproofing, an elevator served building and improved landscaping with a Clay Street screen wall. • The site is located in the General Plan Governmental Educational and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) designation in the Cliff Haven statistical area. The site is zoned R -1 and R- 2 and the Church holds an existing Use Permit. • The proposed entitlements would leave the General Plan land use designation unchanged; would bring the zoning up to date; would establish standards for an amended and restated conditional Use Permit, and building height standards and parking allowances. • In terms of other land uses surrounding the project site, there is Newport Harbor High School to the north, Ensign Middle School, the Masonic Lodge as well as a multifamily residential use from 15th Street to the south as well as financial and multifamily, administrative and commercial north of 16th Street. Cliff Haven and Newport Heights single family residential also surrounds the Church site. • St. Andrews began in 1947, in 1987 the chapel/administration building was built. • The old Fellowship Hall will be demolished as part of the renovation. . The new youth and family center building footprint moves closer toward Clay Street. file: //H:1Plancomm1200410520.htm Page 23 of 39 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 The nearest home to the proposed youth and family center is about 145 feet away. The campus building net square footage has been provided in terms of the EIR as well as a 24/7 look at the church campus with activities for the purpose of the City's traffic and use forecast. The total net increase is 35,948 square feet; there is no change proposed in the sanctuary; about 16,000 square feet of the increase is for new restrooms, storage and circulation; and the gymnasium component is proposed to be about 6,800 square feet of the total building. . About 58% of the proposed building program is below grade. The existing parking on site is 250 spaces with a Use Permit limit of not more than 1,387 persons on site for worship services. The overflow use on Saturday evenings and Sundays are at Newport Harbor High School and the preferential parking zones for selected neighborhood streets. After 400 spaces on site, including the elimination of all compact parking spaces, we presume no increase in worshipers, and no increase in the number of spaces used at Newport Harbor High School. We are open on the number of additional spaces that we will provide through the high school for the students with no changes in the permissible on- street rules for the preferential zone. . The building height limitation on the fellowship hall is about 13% of the roof surface over the 32 foot building.height for the mechanical screening. 50 feet would actually be the maximum height for this building. . The youth and family center building height has about 5% of the roof surface over the 32 foot building height for the mechanical screening. . Photometric analysis shows no light spillage from the site. The development will have a 6 foot landscaped screen wall over the entire length of Clay Street. . He summarized: 150 additional parking spaces on the campus, a new youth and family center, better building facilities, handicap accessibility to all floors, earthquake resistance, soundproofing, improved campus landscaping and amended and restated Use Permit that will address environmental and community issues. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm Page 24 of 39 06/04/2004 • 0 • Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 . He thanked the Commission for the time and offered anyone the use of the materials in the presentation. Commissioner Eaton asked about the additional parking if required as noted by a previous speaker, does that refer to the 150 being proposed or can you provide more than that? The existing preferential parking on residential streets does it relate to weekdays? Would the applicant object to having that preferential parking extend also to summer months? Mr. Bettencourt answered that is the practical number on site assuming that the overflow parking continues as it has for 45 years at the Newport Harbor High School The EIR talks about the high school's opportunity to increase onsite parking for students as slim, so we are open to providing additional non -peak parking opportunities for students through the high school administration on our campus, but we do not have any more onsite opportunities. Yes, the residential parking relates to weekdays and school hours. City staff has been clear in implementing the site plan and the access points, we were not to remove any on -street spaces. No, the applicant has no claims on any needs, we expect to park with our own resources. Mr. Edmonston noted that the preferential parking in this neighborhood is on school days and is not applicable during the summer or on weekends. Commissioner Tucker asked about the site plan and from the entry points how cars get to the lower level of the parking structure and if the gates would be open only when the facilities were open. Mr. Bettencourt noted that the three entry sites remain unchanged from the current site plan, at 15th Street, Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. He then noted the paths from each. Although the gates are not shown on the site plan, there will be gates on all facilities including the parking structure itself that will be closed when it is not being occupied. He noted that not all information has been received to date regarding the use of the gates during off peak times. Public comment was opened. Dick England of 435 Snug Harbor Road noted he was not in support of this application stating: • He stated he wrote a letter regarding the draft EIR that included 9 questions. • The EIR represents that everything will be fine. He asked if file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm Page 25 of 39 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 they are going to review the final EIR before the final report to the Council? . Why was the EQAC report not included in the draft EIR? There were 54 problems listed and they should certainly be aired and made public. . He then noted his frustration and said the Commission should look at this information. Mr. Campbell noted that staff is preparing responses to all the comment letters received during the official comment period and those will be made available hopefully next week Friday. Commissioner Tucker noted that the final EIR is the draft report that has been circulated with all the comment letters, all the responses to the comments and a series of findings as to what was in the report. It is a very detailed document and comes in one package and that is what is certified by the Planning Commission and then it goes on to the City Council. The letter from EQAC will have very specific responses as well as any other technical letters. The public comment period ended the last of April. Mike Johnson, resident of St. James Road noted he is not in support of the proposal. He stated that people should identify where they live and that the people who are influenced the most are the immediate neighbors. He stated that the church site is active all the time. The church has posted on their property during school hours a sign that states, no student parking. There is no swap for the student parking. He asked that comments from people who live in the sphere of influence should be given more credence. . Mr. Krotee, chairman of an association, noted the following: . Each of the neighborhoods have the same concern. . The Church was conditioned under the Use Permit to report attendance. Some years ago, the church added a Saturday service, but have never reported that service attendance. It may be that the condition was not written correctly or may have been misread. . Absent from the materials before you is a letter written about 18 months ago by Evelyn Hart who was involved with the Council action in 1987 that was to be the last growth of the footage that was discussed as Mr. John Hoffman talked about. That was supposed to be as large as the project would be. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm Page 26 of 39 06/04/2004 Ll Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 • • We are here now, twenty -two years later, with the church asking for upwards of 30% additional growth with an additional 35,000 square feet in our neighborhood. • The density of these uses as they go underground will make this project more dense than South Coast Plaza. • The Planning Commission needs to look at the building density in a use permit in an R -1 zone, in a sleepy neighborhood. The Church was made as a neighborhood church, and we believe they can embrace the youth they talk about and the good by tearing down the existing buildings and building better facilities. • With the size of this growth will come parking demand, which by staffs admission is not sufficient. Staff tells you there is no parking requirement for churches. One has to look at the uses throughout the programs. • The parking in the EIR should be compared to the actual parking on site as the programs are in place. • For a project of this magnitude we are going to see horrific effects on air quality related to the traffic. • He asked that the Commission look at the findings to make 'overriding considerations' and please find that they are inappropriate. • He thanked staff for their work on this project. Commissioner Tucker asked if there was not a parking problem or concern, do you have a problem with the square footage? Mr. Krotee answered, we do and it is related to the traffic. The City now embraces the Level of Service (LOS) D as fine. Well, it is not D yet, and we don't want it to be or even close to D. But because LOS D is fine in CEQA terms with something as immense as this project is, you will view the traffic portions of the document as not impacted. Commissioner Tucker noted the problem with the footage is the belief that it will bring more cars and more traffic. Looking at the footprint and the proposed architecture, if there wasn't a traffic problem, do you have a problem with the way the facility looks with its density and bulk? Mr. Krotee answered that they would like to have more landscaping with a proposal like this. file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm Page 27 of 39 I 14TININPWIM Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 Bill Dunlap, 400 Snug Harbor Rd in Cliff Haven, noted the following: . In 1982 he was present when the original expansion was discussed. • This is one of the toughest things that can happen in a public forum, not only for the neighborhood but for the Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers because you have people who know each other, who go to the church or don't go to the church that may or may not be in favor of this expansion. • This issue should have been discussed with all parties concerned prior to this public meeting. • The parking structures are not liked much by people over 50 and especially if you are a woman. • Parking in these structures at peak ingress and egress hours with everyone scrambling to get a spot will start backing up and people will get frustrated and park on the side streets. • There is no requirement that people have to use the parking structure: . He concluded stating they would love to meet with St. Andrews people and reach a compromise and then come back to the City with a project that all people involved with can support. In opposition Gary Gensky, 430 Snug Harbor Denise Lackey, resident of Cliff Haven Jim Trammel, St. Andrews Rd Chris Budnick, resident of East 16th Street and property owner on Clay Street noted that he had contacted several other landowners on Clay and that seven of them are opposed Bruce Steward, 333 Pirate Road The following issues were raised by people in opposition to the expansion: . Illegal parking . No crosswalks with many jaywalkers file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm Page 28 of 39 117.I M 0 0 O Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 • Noise . Suggested alternative - YMCA is discussing with the City to build what is being proposed tonight, the Church can use those facilities. . In 1982 people were told that would be the last expansion sought by the church. . Concerned about safety of underground parking especially with the high school students in the underground structure. • There is a big gymnasium right across the street, they don't have to build one on site. • St. Andrews is an asset to the community. • There are currently 12 GEIF sites in Newport Beach that have FAR maximums associated with them, ranging from Mariner's School at a .1 FAR, the Pacific View Church at a .3 FAR, and Harbor High School at a .5 FAR. The existing campus is already at a .6 FAR, which is 22% greater than the most dense GEIF zoned site in Newport Beach. The proposal would take it to a .81 FAR which is 64% more dense. • There was a study on peak and Sunday traffic impact would like to highlight that with 38,000 square feet of specialized programming that is proposed. There is significant off peak impact to the community with average daily trips as opposed to peak trips. • The City is currently undertaking a significant traffic study for Cliff Haven and Newport Heights with improvements being. proposed at several hundred thousands of dollars for the existing traffic. • The General Plan for the statistical area has 54,000 square feet of growth, none of that is for this site. • No growth is allocated for this site. • More space will attract more people because there will be more services • Request that the Planning Commission further study the overall non -peak impact to our community and establish a reasonable FAR limit to go along with the proposed zone change. Again, it is .61 now which is greater than the .5 maximum. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm Page 29 of 39 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 . The church outgrows every expansion it requests and the streets can not handle the additional traffic. . Pirate Road has 29 children that live on that block and the parents are concerned about the safety and security issues with the parking structure. . This is a planning issue of whether a 140,000 square foot use is suitable on a 3.9 acre site. In support Judy Rateman, 2000 Cliff Drive: Dave Rothness, director of Youth at St. Andrews Asha Michaels, youth program member Ina Kaufman, 306 St. Andrews Road Hanna Patrick, local resident George Turk, 729 St. James Road Gary Buker, 519 Redlands The following issues were raised by people in support of the expansion: . As a teacher she notes that extracurricular activities are needed by kids to make them successful. . There is a shortage in the area for places to book venues for a dance or practice for a game. . This modernization would provide more room for the children to flourish, opportunities for kids of all ages to be involved and stay straight. . There will be a temporary inconvenience during the construction, but there will be a lot more good in the long range. • A lot of kids use the parking lot for the skateboards. • We want to find a creative way for a positive outlet and take away the noise issues. • Goes to Harbor High School and we need this facility for students who are not involved in sports. • Kids need a place to go play and talk to people who care and can help. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004\0520.htm Page 30 of 39 06/04/2004 • 0 • Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 • • The negative can be outweighed by the positive and know that the children are going to be safer. • There is a need for a gymnasium. • The church was there when a good percentage of the people in the community bought their homes. • The church expansion is good for the kids. The church has been an opportunity for personal growth. • She would like to see other kids be able to come to the church for their personal problems as well as extra curricular activities. • There is no other place except for the schools for kids to go. Ron Henrickson, resident of the City and member of the church presented a petition to the Planning Commission signed by 500 people. The petition reads, 'We the undersigned, who attend St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, believe that this church has a critical need for youth and family facilities, and we request the approval by the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council of the proposed project that will be before you. The project consists of a new Youth and Family building, the replacement of the existing fellowship hall building, and a parking facility that would increase parking by 60 %.' Commissioner Tucker asked Mr. Bettencourt about the use of underground parking. Does the church have a parking program and how will it be implemented? Mr. Bettencourt answered that the parking facility can be better controlled through compliance with the existing City standards and the inclusion of gates to secure facilities when not in use. In terms of the parking management, there will be instructions to the church members, ushered parking for large events, selected street parking coned off if permissible, require staff to use the lower level first; a 45 minute buffer between services and provide additional spaces' to Newport Harbor High School. At Commission inquiry, he added that the Church is open to dialogue with the school district about a'i parking structure. It is a possibility as an off -site alternative as stated in the EIR. Mr. Campbell stated that staff has received a letter from the district included in the response to comments in the EIR that states they are not looking to expand any facility or build a parking structure on school district property. file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm Page 31 of 39 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 Mr. Edmonston noted that the City has had routine meetings with the district and they have confirmed that they have no interest to date in pursing any additional parking on their campus nor entering into any official written agreements with the Church. They do not secure their facilities and the public is free to use them. Mr. Bettencourt, at Commission inquiry, stated that the Church is currently using the 15th Street parking spaces of the school, although during the construction period, there is an agreement with the high school to use the 16th Street lot and a shuttle service for Saturday evenings and Sundays only will be provided, Chairman McDaniel affirmed that to get additional parking there would have to be more construction there on the school campus. Commissioner Tucker noted that one of the speakers mentioned that more space will attract more people because there will be more services, Some of those people may be at peak hours or it may result in an expansion of peak hours. The staff report noted that the sanctuary and some of the other facilities would not be used concurrently. There is a certain amount of people allowed at peak time on the campus, will the amount allowed in the future change? What about the use of the gymnasium? Mr. Bettencourt answered we provided a 24/1 forecast of all the current activities. These sorts of facilities give the Church additional capabilities to serve its members, but, this is in the context of 400 parking spaces on campus. The parking demand is based on the needs of the sanctuary, which is not increasing. Our working assumption is that the existing peak that is based on the parking would not change. The gymnasium capacity is less than 500. The Church already has a sharing of the facilities that take place within the context of the campus for the schools. Commissioner Tucker stated that we always urge people to work out disagreements amongst themselves. It is best that they decide, because when we will decide our solution may not be very happy for one party or another. Commissioner Selich asked if the Church had considered or offered on that school district 254 space lot to go ahead and build a second level parking deck above ground as opposed to going underground on their site? Mr. Bettencourt answered that it had been discussed several years ago; however, the school officials had suggested an 800 space facility and it was a more expansive plan than what was envisioned. The overflow is about 63 spaces for services Saturday evening and two Sunday services. file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm Page 32 of 39 06/04/2004 0 • 9 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 • Mr. Ken Williams answered that with regard to the parking structure on the school property, we need to get together. When we discussed the parking with the school two years ago and came up with the 800+ structure, the reaction to that was so negative that we stopped. Our position has always been, that is the better solution. And the position that we took is that until we could get community support for that, we would not come back and try to present it. Our job now is to talk that out and pick up on the conversation and see if that is a solution that would have the neighborhood support. Continuing with public testimony: In opposition Ellen Shiro Mike Talbert, 324 Signal Road Jim Carmak, 1000 Cliff Drive The following issues were raised by people in opposition of the expansion: . Her home is directly across the driveway on St. Andrews Road and she is concerned with the dense use of car lights and noise. . Asked that trees be planted to help mitigate the problem. . Presently the area is well over what it can take. . The improvements will mean a 34% increase in the density of square footage. That is a 34% increase in the traffic and impact on the City in an area that is already at maximum. . The attendance reporting does not include the Saturday services or day care. There is no way to ascertain the campus use. In support James Zulof, resident of the area Scott Smith, 1801 Mariners Drive • The following issues were raised by people in support of the expansion: . The noise will be kept away from the neighborhood with the file: //H: \Plancomrn \2004 \0520.htm Page 33 of 39 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 use of the new gymnasium . The investments being added into the Church will be added into the infrastructure of the City and will ultimately increase property value. Mr. Campbell noted that the existing Use Permit has a condition that St. Andrews provide attendance reports on a semi - annual basis. We -have been receiving those reports dutifully every six months since the condition was put in place. Those reports do not show the attendance within the sanctuary to exceed the levels stated here. The City does not know how many people are there on the entire campus an any given Sunday, we do know how many people there are in the sanctuary at services on Sunday and that is all the reports basically indicate. Continuing with public testimony: In opposition Waverly Lusia, of 501 Irvine George Wall Jan Vandersloot, resident of East 16th Street Barbara Rawlings, noted she was an active participation on the development and agreement of 1982 Tom Cullis, 418 Snug Harbor, Brian- Brooks, 128 Kings Place, President of Cliff Haven Homeowners Association Carrie Slayback, 426 Riverside Avenue The following issues were raised by people in opposition of the expansion: Asked if "there is going to be some type of limitation put on any use of the gymnasium. . There has to be some compromise position. The 1982 agreement was taken to the absolute limit of permits, variances and conditions for the size of their facility and property. She understands the need to amend the use permit; however, the primary problem is that this is too big a building for this size of property. Concern of the kids lingering in the parking lot after programs are over at night. He asked how the City will clear the kids out after the activities and the sound carries. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm Page 34 of 39 06/04/2004 F 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 Noted that the City Council has authorized a study of neighborhood traffic. The plan includes circles, bulges and other things because of the concern of today's traffic movement through Newport Heights and Cliff Haven. In support Cathy Troxall, resident of Cliff Drive Andy Citrou, student of Newport Harbor High School Karen Taillon, 542 Fullerton Avenue Jack Earlings of 411 Kings Road Peter Smith resident of Balboa Boulevard The following issues were raised by people in support of the expansion: • The parking lot on 16th Street is mainly staff parking and the students who park there get tickets and therefore supports the proposed parking structure and the gymnasium. • She moved there knowing she was.moving next to a church and a high school. It is unfair to move into a neighborhood and then all of a sudden want to halt the progress and halt the development of programs and benefits that are provided for the community particularly for the youth because it now happens to impose a little bit on your quiet or your neighborhood. None of the perceived problems will overshadow the benefits being provided by the Church. • About 4,500 members a few years ago, today the membership is around 4,100. The membership is now older and we are hoping to appeal to younger families that are in our neighborhood to join us. The gym will be a place for the kids to come in and play and will be a nice, safe environment. • He doesn't understand the traffic concern as students will walk to the gymnasium and /or parents will either pick them up at their school or at the church. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kiser asked: • Is the consideration of FAR relevant to our decisions /consideration of this project? • Is it typical to not have the FAR apply but rather have a gross square footage limitation? Page 35 of 39 file://H.-\Plancomm\2004\0520.htm 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 Mr. Campbell answered that the site presently has a square footage limitation. Looking at the FARs is a measurement of comparison of building square footage to property. In terms of zoning scheme it is a square footage limitation, not FAR. It is basically the policy that there will be no expansion. Ms. Temple added that there is not a trend, there are many that have FARs. The ones that have specific square footage limits usually were those such as St. Andrews that had existing 'master plan use permit that identified the outside envelopes of the permitted development. That was the methodology used in 1988. There is not one consistent way of dealing with it. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted that the neighborhood traffic management study that is underway has had three public meetings to date, soliciting neighborhood input on the types of problems they were experiencing, looking at potential solutions by the consultant. The bulk of the comments received were concerns of the cut through traffic and the speed of the traffic.. Therefore, most of the solutions we're looking at such as small traffic circles, extensions of curbs that would physically narrow the street to make drivers less comfortable proceeding at a high rate of speed. They have little to do with parking, which has been an issue tonight. Before the resident permit parking was implemented there was two hour parking around the high school. It is largely unsuccessful because of the number of breaks that the students get that allow them to come out and move their cars. The exact boundaries of the residential permit have been based on the City's polling residents on where the interest lay and where it was not. Before we would extend it, a similar polling of the neighborhood would need to be done because there was a number of people who were not in favor of it. Another aspect would be how many people are at Church for more than two hours. Commissioner Cole asked about the FAR density of the proposed site going to .61 from .81. Can you confirm for the next nearing if that is the case and if there are any higher densities in GEIF sites? I would like to see a matrix of other densities in the City. Commissioner Eaton noted the following: . This is a difficult issue. . He noted a letter received comparing the Mormon temple and this church expansion. . Staff should prepare findings for both approval and denial this issue. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm Page 36 of 39 06/04/2004 • is Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 . Responses to comments need to be viewed by both the Commission and public. Commissioner Toerge noted the following: . In the draft EIR, the General Plan limits the size to 100,428 square feet and would like to know how the site currently exceeds that limit by over 4,000 square feet. . The proposed 34% increase does not represent a modest increase. • He encouraged the residents and the Church to get together so that when the Planning Commission makes their decision, everyone will approve. • Does the change in zoning from R -1 and R -2 to GEIF allow for additional /differing development or use rights in the future. . The applicant should address the varying nature of the program uses and the hours of operation and how they are to be used. i• The indoor gymnasium replacing outdoor activities, does the Planning Commission have the right to limit or condition those outdoor activities should the project be approved. • Why is an off -site youth facility such an unacceptable alternative? • He would like to hear recommendations from the Police Department to minimize the unauthorized use of the parking structure. • The reference to an occurrence in 1988 that permits no additional floor area on site, what brought that about? • Given the overwhelming correspondence from the neighbors, he is having a very difficult time at this moment finding that this project is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Unless there is some compromise or revelation that occurs between now and the next meeting to make the finding that this is not detrimental to the neighborhood he would be hard pressed to support this application. . Commissioner Kiser asked staff for guidance on the Commission's ability or inability to condition occupancies and /or hours of operation for Church related activities on site and for those that are non Church activities. He noted that this project begs a Page 37 of 39 file : //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm 06/04/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 compromise and hopes that the Church can get with community to reach a viable compromise. Commissioner Tucker noted that: • The additional density in and of itself does not draw the ire as much as the consequences of the density. • He offered that design changes should be looked at relative to restricting or changing entry points. • Parking at the school would help, but needs to be more convenient than parking elsewhere that is off site. • The size of the parking spaces needs to be more accommodating for larger vehicles. • There is a need to deal with the operational details on site. Commissioner Selich noted his agreement with the comments of the other Commissioners adding he would like some exploration of some additional parking on the high school; perhaps a second parking level deck that would almost double the parking plus. He noted this would be less disruptive construction wise as opposed to excavating an underground structure and would possibly divert a lot of traffic that might be on Clay Street and St. Andrews going into the Church parking structure. Chairman McDaniel thanked the audience for their participation noting it was difficult for people to speak publicly. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to June 3, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that Council called up the action of the Newport Technology, Center, which will be heard this upcoming Tuesday. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0520.htm Page 38 of 39 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 06/04/2004 0 i 0 Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2004 • Page 39 of 39 ADJOURNMENT: 11:25 p.m. I ADJOURNMENT MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION fileJ/H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm 06104/2004 c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Eaton noted that the group went through some of the guiding principles and came up with some suggestions that will be heard at a joint study session. Commissioner Tucker requested to see the guiding principles as they come up. Ms. Wood agreed. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Selich would like to be advised about the progress of the Assembly Bill regarding 'granny units'. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. g. Project status - none. h. Requests for excused absences - none. • Page 39 of 39 ADJOURNMENT: 11:25 p.m. I ADJOURNMENT MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION fileJ/H:\Plancomm \2004 \0520.htm 06104/2004