Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutesr 1 u • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - Chairperson Kiser was excused, all others were present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Chandra Slaven, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to approve the minutes of January 23, 2003 as revised. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Excused: Kiser Public Comments: Ms. Temple presented a pin to Ms. Gifford to honor her ten years of service to the City of Newport Beach. Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, February 14, 2003. Minutes Approved Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 707 E. Ocean Front Amendment to Use Permit No. 3683 to increase the height limit for an elevator tower (34 feet) and several architectural features (32 feet), increase the bulk of the approved project to accommodate the new elevator tower and to make other architectural and design changes. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant has requested this item be continued to March 6, 2003. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to March 6, 2003. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None Excused: Kiser SUBJECT: McDonald's Corporation - (PA2001 -155) 700 West Coast Highway . Use Permit and Development Plan to redevelop the existing McDonald's restaurant in the Mariner's Mile area. The existing 3,045 sq. ft. restaurant will be demolished and a new 3,113 sq. ft. restaurant building will be constructed with a reconfigured drive - thru. The application also requests a modification of required parking. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant has requested this item be continued to April 3rd, 2003. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to April 3, 2003. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None Excused: Kiser SUBJECT: Me and My EV - (PA2002 -245). 3636 Newport Boulevard Request for a Use Permit to establish a Vehicle Soles and Rental Dealership (Limited) specializing in the sale and rental of low speed electric vehicles. The application also includes a request to modify the number of required on -site parking spaces. Finally, the project also includes a request for a Modification Permit to allow tandem parking on commercially zoned property. Christine Harer, resident of Balboa and applicant, noted that she had opened her INDEX PA2002 -236 Continued to 03/06/2003 Rem 2 PA2001 -155 Continued to 04/03/2003 Rem 3 PA2002 -245 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 shop as a tour guide company last year. Recently, she has added the zero emission vehicles licensed through the DMV. These vehicles are for sale and rental and are considered no noise vehicles. At Commission inquiry, she stated she has read, understands and agrees to the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report. At Commission inquiry Ms. Harer noted: • There will be one display section outside the shop. • The EV's available for rental will be stored inside the building. • All of the EV's are stored inside the building at night, none are left outside. • Guided tour vehicles will be given in the rental fleet; there are no separate tour cars. • lam the only one right now who is licensed to sell the EV's. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Toerge noted: • Operator is to provide a handout outlining the Vehicle Code section that pertains to the operation of an electrical vehicle. Would it be a burden that the operator maintains a record of those signed statements so that it is evident that the operators know the rules of operation of this EV$ Ms. Harer noted that this is State Law, and has to turn in a special form with those vehicles codes each time a vehicle is sold with the customer's signature. A copy is kept at the store and the DMV gets a copy. This same procedure is being done for the rentals. Commissioner Gifford noted that it is not within the purview of the Commission as a land use body to get into the area of time requirement for this paperwork. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 2002 -051 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -023 (PA2002 -245) with the findings and conditions contained in the draft resolution. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None Excused: Kiser sss SUBJECT: Bayvlew Affordable Senior Housing Development (PA2002- 246) Bayview Senior Affordable Housing Project, consisting of 150 units on approximately 5 acres. The Use Permit will establish the development standards under the provisions of the Bayview Landing Planned Community (PC -39) INDEX Item No. 4 (PA2002 -246) Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 regulations, and will establish a height limit. The Site Plan Review will establish the grade of the site for the purposes of measuring building height. The Lot Line Adjustment will adjust the boundary between the site and the proposed park site to the south. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. Use Permit No. 2003 -003 /Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 /1-ot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -011. Senior Planner, James Campbell gave an overview of the staff report as well as proposed changes since the last presentation of the project to the Planning Commission noting: • Project changes resulting from concerns expressed at the January 23, 2003 workshop are: lowering the building one foot on the third level, change the average roof height to 32 1/2 feet, and the roof peak to 35 feet high. • Revised view simulations on location of buildings on the site and boundary encompassing the site. Findings for establishing the grade at a different elevation than natural grade. Findings for establishing the height limit of the structure between 26 feet and 35 feet. Commissioner Tucker noted the following: • The Negative Declaration was prepared for both the affordable housing site and the park. Two letters were received from the public. • How much of the coastal sage scrub was on the affordable housing site as opposed to the park site? • Is the Planning Commission being asked to approve the entire Mitigated Negative Declaration in conjunction with the project, or just the portions that pertain to the affordable housing site? Does this mean that there is not a CEQA approval of the park site later? What is the significance of approving this whole Negative Declaration? • This is just a Use Permit and a Lot Line Adjustment, does this go any further? Jim Campbell responded: • The park site does not come back to the Planning Commission; it is within the jurisdiction of the City Council. • The Negative Declaration does cover both sites. The decision to go forward with the park requires an environmental review that will rest upon this particular document. • This particular item has been set on the agenda for the next week for the City Council at their request because they are considering the financial arrangements. They will also rule on the use permit. Commissioner Toerge asked: • Is the age restriction of 55 years under the discretion of the Planning Commission authority, can it be increased? • Upon approval of this project, an additional 30,000 square feet of retail entitlement accrues to Fashion Island, when does that occur? 4 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Ms. Wood answered: • Discretion on the age restriction is limited by the financing. This project is financed through state tax exempt bonds and tax credits; 55 is the age specified for those programs. Ms. Temple added that the General Plan states that if the affordable senior housing project is implemented on the project site, an additional 30,000 square feet of retail entitlement would go to Fashion Island. The City would not finalize that transfer until the project is constructed. The City Council and the Irvine Company would discuss a mechanism in order to memorialize that particular transfer. Commissioner Toerge continued: • The retention basin, how does that drain or is it an evaporative pond? • Is there parking provided for the park at Upper Bayview Landing? • Lawns or ground cover on the park, is that within our purview or does it go to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission? Mr. Edmonston answered: • The basin is constructed to retain a ten -year storm and would seep through the bottom into the ground. A heavier storm would be designed to flow over and out into the bay. • There is no parking for the Upper Bayview Landing being provided. Ms. Wood added: • The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission make recommendations to the City Council about the ground cover. It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to talk about it in terms of the Negative Declaration if you view it as creating or correcting an environmental impact. Mr. John Douglas of Civic Solutions, a consultant for the City, answered that the CIOSA Environmental Impact Report says that virtually none of the coastal sage scrub was on the housing site; it was all on the park site. Because of the adjustment in the lot line that is now being proposed, there would be a very small portion of the coastal sage scrub on the housing site, but still the vast majority would be on the park site. Mr. Bill Truxaw, civil engineer for the project noted that the detention basin is designed to capture the runoff from the senior site and the park site in a ten -year event over a 24 hour period. During that time the water would collect and be detained in the basin. Should there be a longer term event, then the water would spill out through some small pipes into the adjacent street. For the day to day nuisance flow, they will be contained within the basin and percolate down into the ground. A ten year storm intensity over a 24 -hour period if it rains continuously for 16 to 20 hours would fill the 4 to 5 foot capacity and it would begin to spill out into the adjacent street. There is good ground water percolation there so we INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 reach the capacity very often. Gino Canori, project manager for the Related Companies affirmed that no parking is being provided for the adjacent park site. Commissioner Tucker asked: • Why are we getting involved in environmental aspects on parts of the project that are not on the affordable housing site? Ms. Wood answered because the Mitigated Negative Declaration is being reviewed by the Commission. It was then noted that the site plan, conceptual landscape and grading plans were part of the packet. Ms. Temple clarified: • In terms of the CEQA document itself and what was needed, because there is an integrated grading plan and drainage plan and it is intended to construct both projects at the same time, in order to have an adequate document, we had to assess it all together so that we did not fall on the issue of CEQA regarding project segmentation for purposes of avoiding a full environmental analysis. • The Planning Commission is a body that is capable of certifying an environmental document and can be done even if the Planning Commission is the entity that actually approves portions of the project. • We have a document intended to be adequate under CEQA and it is being used and certified but in association with the Planning Commission consideration of the senior housing project. Ms. Clauson added that this document will be used in the evaluation of the park subject to the project description that the Planning Commission is approving. If there are changes in the design or park, then the environmental document that is being used will have to be evaluated for any subsequent evaluations or changes that might occur against the CEQA regulations are. Commissioner Gifford noted that the draft resolution only refers to the housing site. Under Section 3.2B 'views from Coast Highway and park site will be improved by the project', is that really the park project and the reduction of the grade there? She noted that it is not really this project that is the subject of the finding so we can just strike this as it is not discussed in the staff report that there is an improvement under the grading. Mr. Campbell answered that it deals also with the environmental document, which is the broader scope. Mrs. Wood added that the grading of the park site will improve the views. She agreed that language from this finding could be stricken from the resolution. Commissioner Selich noted: • He did not look at the Mitigated Negative Declaration in terms of the park INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 site, but rather in terms of the affordable housing site. • If we approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration in the form it is in now, does that limit the discretion of the Parks Commission to make that area meadow or grass, or do they still have that flexibility? Ms. Temple answered, it would not necessarily limit future discretion. If a change is made in the project description that would warrant further environmental review, then we would have to do that prior to their action. They or the City Council would then have to take action on the new environmental review process, if necessary. Mr. Gino Canori noted the comments made at the last workshop have been integrated within the new plan to date as far as raising the existing grade, changing roof pitches and covering the parking analysis. He has read and understands the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. Commissioner Tucker asked that a technical answer be given for why the site has to be raised by five feet and that there are no viable alternatives. Karios Markowizos, MNG Geotechnical, geotechnical engineer noted that the geotechnical reasons has to do with the shallow ground water condition. As the site exists now, there are poorly compacted soils near the surface and the ground water table is approximately ten feet below that. During the remedial grading, that will limit what can be done. The removal and recompaction will be limited by the ground water. Increasing the site elevation will allow us to put a thicker compacted fill cap making a better foundation platform for the proposed buildings that will help mitigate the settlement issues. In addition, the shallow ground water conditions could pose adverse conditions for any deeper excavations, the elevator pits, deeper utilities both in the construction and maintenance of those. Raising the site and adding the additional fill also reduces the amount of export by placing that material that is generated by the grading on site. It is feasible to de -water to go down a little, but there is an expense and design considerations associated with that. Commissioner Toerge asked how many employees are expected on site at any one time. He was answered that there will be three, a manager, leasing manager and maintenance personnel during the day. Commissioner Tucker noted the following for members of the audience: • The Planning Commission is into the technical review of the details. • We are not the group to hear about the need for the facility. • The Planning Commission is looking for physical issues with building the project on this property. Public comment was opened. Vice Chairperson McDaniel asked for a show of hands of speakers pro and con on this matter and then determined that the people who are against were to speak INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 first. Speaking in opposition: Steve Morse, resident of Villa Point noted: • Parking issue for a 55 year old senior housing project - 55 year old people do not stop driving, they continue. • This project has 130 one bedroom and 20 two bedroom units. Parking is grossly inadequate. • Comparisons used for parking came from San Mateo, San Francisco, and San Bernardino, nothing from the area over here. • This project is not within walking distances to anything for the seniors, therefore, vehicle transportation will be needed for anybody to go anywhere. • Thirty visiting parking places for 150 senior units where there are families is a lot of visiting. 30 parking places for 150 units seem grossly inadequate. • Living across the street from the project, I see what the traffic is like now. There are times when traffic backs up from Pacific Coast Highway well beyond the Hyatt Newport Hotel in the rush hours. • Perhaps the scale of the project could be lower in view of this because I feel the parking is inadequate, there will be overflow and intrusion into our project and visitors will be encroaching into our property when they come to visit. • At Commission inquiry, he noted that he had concerns about the view from Jamboree and the open space there; there are potential new sites for affordable housing in the areas being annexed such as Newport Coast and the Santa Ana Heights area. Walt Nutting, Villa Point resident noted the following: • Concerned with the density of the area. • Most of the people will have their own cars. With a density of around 300 from these 150 units, the amount of parking is not enough. • Concerned with what happens to the senior citizens trying to cross eight lanes of Pacific Coast Highway. • There are many activities that happen on this property that happen with special permits. They will no longer be allowed. Edward Murphy, Villa Point resident: • Asked why the elevation sitings were not taken from the first floor ground from Villa Point. • I feel you are hiding something that is going to obstruct my view of the Back Bay. • He asked that same kind of indicator be made by the developer to show what kind of roof line people living on the ground floor at Villa Point will be looking at towards the Back Bay. • I don't want my view obstructed. Mr. Campbell answered that the view simulations were done from both the INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 ground level and the second floor at Villa Point. Kon Lee, resident of Villa Point asked: • If the building was lowered by five feet and now the ground is raised by five feet, how has the building been lowered? • Has the civil engineers calculations on the catch basin been reviewed by the Commission? • Why is there so much concern about the drivers on PCH? How about the residents of Villa Point? Those drivers on PCH, may not live in Newport Beach, they just pass by. Why is the project emphasized so much on the views for drivers on PCH. Matthew Gilbert, licensed land surveyor, stated: • He had been retained by the Villa Point Homeowners Association to do a view impact study from an aerial perspective taken from two points along top of slope that currently look out over into the back bay area. • He noted he had been provided with a conceptual plan two weeks ago. • He then explained his exhibit that portrays a shaded area that will no longer be seen from residents at Villa Point from their back patio on the ground floor three and half feet above ground surface where a person would sit. Commissioner Tucker noted that: • The Planning Commission enforces the policies of the City. The City has no policy on view protection. • These buildings can be built to 35 feet by use permit or 26 feet by right. If you want to argue about the view, if that is really what you are arguing about, then you need to discuss why we are unable to make the findings that justify a 35 foot height limit. • At the start of the meeting. I asked the people who wanted to talk about the need not to address us, that is not what we are here for. We have no control over that. • Likewise, we do not have any ability to grant view protection. If you have specific technical reasons for why the four findings that staff went over at the beginning of the meeting regarding building heights can't be made, that is what we are going to listen to, it's the Code. The City Council will be hearing this at their next meeting. Commissioner Gifford noted that when we talk about the views and they are discussed in the staff report and in the Negative Declaration it is not within our purview to protect private views. It is within our charge to look at the impact on public views. Egan Vanderberg, resident of Villa Point noted the following: • Those who bought into Villa Point didn't just buy the structure; they bought Newport Beach with its amenities, demographics of people with high education and income, low density, etc. • What we paid for property was based on how it looked and what it was., INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes � J DTI • If this proposed project had been there before Villa Point we would not have paid what we did because the project reduces the overall value based on the fact it is not in the same character as everything else that is built in Newport Beach. • If I had wanted to buy property next to low income housing, I could have done so in Garden Grove for a third of the money. • 1 am in support of the philosophy for providing some subsidy for housing for people who can't afford it but why do they have to have the supreme location in all of Newport Beach with the waterfront property. Why can't you take them out to Norco or some place like that? • People are parking in our facility with overflow parking daily and we are the overflow parking lot for Balboa Island. There is no parking on Back Bay or on Jamboree. We will be heavily impacted by the parking situation. Dean Smart, attorney for Villa Point Association noted the following: • Any approval given to the findings or resolution tonight would be premature and abbreviates the rights of the public to have due process to determine whether your actions are appropriate. • The people within the community have not been adequately notified and should be here to review your findings that are being changed by the hour. How does anyone from the community have an opportunity to come and challenge the findings and resolution if you are getting new information this evening? • The Mitigated Negative Declaration is seriously flawed. I challenge you on several points, i.e., the parking that is supposedly a part of the EIR and the traffic, neither one of those has been adequately addressed. The areas from which the consultants for the applicant have drawn their information range from San Bernardino to San Francisco. That is ridiculous; there is plenty of opportunity to do studies within the surrounding areas to determine what the affect would be on the community in which the project is going to be placed. • We believe there is no indication that the traffic effect has been adequately valued. I don't know how you can have a finding that a mitigated declaration is appropriate until you have those kinds of studies. • Additionally, the archeological aspect of this has not been adequately addressed. Not only do we have evidence within the surrounding community that there is extremely important archeological finds within the Newport Beach area that are important to the residents and to the native Americans of our state, there is no indication that there is any provision for safe guarding whatever is found. • The catch basin sounds to me like one big mosquito pond. Until we have some kind of information that the environmental impact has such a holding basin, the percolating rates, evaporation rates, the volume of water, I think there has not been a showing that a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate. • If necessary, I know that the association as a concerned citizen will contemplate bringing a petition as is appropriate in order to obtain an environmental impact report. 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Commissioner Tucker asked the speaker if had had an opportunity to review the traffic study that was included in the staff report. Mr. Smart answered he read all that was on the internet. Commissioner Tucker noted the following: • There was a traffic study that was part of the staff report. To hear that traffic is bad without telling us what is wrong with the report that we are relying on doesn't help us. • The new water quality regulations suggest detention basins where possible. They would rather the water percolate than run off directly into the bay. Peter O'Hearn, resident of Villa Point noted he likes to walk on the path around the bay. He asked if that road (Back Bay Drive) could be closed to vehicular traffic as it is a one -way road and could be used to access the proposed project. Mr. Edmonston answered that the topic of the use of Back Bay Drive for joggers and bicyclists is something that is under the purview of the City Council. They are concerned that closing it to all vehicular traffic would deprive access to people who were not able to walk that distance and access it via foot. It is an ongoing issue. The following people spoke in favor of the proposed project: H. Ross Miller, Advocacy Chairman and Senior Housing Chairman of the Friends of the Oasis Senior Center noted the following: • We appreciate the concerns of Villa Point, but you have told us that you can not do anything about their views. • There is an enormous senior population of almost 207o and when you compare that to the number of property owners at Villa Point you can see which side is the biggest and which has the need. • We have been working for this project for a long time and accept the site. • Seniors come with no car or one car and as they get older and are unable to drive, their cars are sold off by their families. • Additionally, we will be operating a van system for the project for seniors who do not have their own automobiles. • The senior center will be closely linked with this operation. • This is a quality developer who was selected by the Irvine Company. • We have a delegation from the senior population and we hope you will approve the use permit, site plan and the lot line adjustment so that we can move onto the Council meeting Tuesday night. • There is a need to get this project done because there are factors that will increase the cost by 15 %. • At Commission inquiry, he noted that seniors come with one car or no car; do not drive during peak hours; and do not create traffic. Ms. Temple noted a 100 unit senior citizen affordable housing project on Pacific 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 View Drive in Corona del Mar that is age restricted. It has 33 parking spaces and to date, no problems have been incurred with that. This was not included in the staff report because it has slightly higher age requirements. In the City's experience there is a substantially reduced parking demand from these projects. There are projects around in Orange County where far less than half a parking space per unit is provided without problem. Commissioner Tucker suggested that parking requirements of cities close by should be found by the applicant as this issue will be brought up at the Council meeting. Dennis Baker, resident of Corona del Mar and Board President of Earth Resource Foundation and a member of the steering committee for SPON noted the following on the park issue: • Pleased that the archeological issue is being addressed with an archeologist on site. • The park has been intended to be a passive park and that is what we are supporting as organizations. We have written letters in support and would have strong objections if this was to change from a passive, natural landscaped park in the direction of turf grass. • We support the building project and the park project as well. • Comments with regards to public access to materials, as a member of the public I attended the study session for this, attended Parks Committee meetings, met with and talked with staff and have had easy access to staff who have provided all the information that I needed. I see absolutely no argument that can be made that says public access was not provided. Anyone who claims they did not have public access made no effort to access. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich noted the following concerns: • The Mitigated Negative Declaration and the park relationship with the senior housing project is certainly confusing. I say get it into the minutes so that the Council can consider it and take a quick review of the declaration. Unless the Council addresses the issue of the project description on the park part of it they are going to be inhibiting the Parks and Recreation Commission to make some determinations on what the nature of the landscaping is going to be on that park, primarily whether it is going to be natural grasses or irrigated turf and it is not within our jurisdiction. • My major concern with regards to public views, there has been a lot of work in siting these buildings irrespective of raising the pad five feet to minimize the impact of the public views on Jamboree. We just got the resolution this evening so I would like consideration to changes to condition 15, which addresses the issue of the landscape plans and public views. Looking at the landscape plans, the type of materials on Jamboree . Road appears to be a type of tree that will grow relatively rapidly and very thick. In my opinion, that would impede the public views, so I suggest the 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 word change to, '.........shall be a species that will not impair the view corridor , or shall be trimmed and maintained so as to not impair the view corridor net to exef4nd the height e€ the layildiags.' The view corridor is well below the 35 feet in the areas going between those buildings. Commissioner Gifford asked for an explanation of deleting the height requirement thinking that the trees not within the view corridor would be limited to 35 feet. Commissioner Selich answered that he is deleting the words, does not exceed a total height of 35 feet and the last part of the condition, exceed the height of the buildings. A lot of the view is below the 35 feet. Looking at the site plan you can see there is an attempt to create view corridors between the buildings. My condition is more restrictive than the 35 feet. This condition only refers to where a view corridor occurs that the height would be restricted to 35 feet. We could have the final landscape plan come back to the Planning Commission and review it or we can leave it up to staff's interpretation. Commissioner Tucker asked why the words 'private view corridors' are in there. Does that get into an area that we have no authority to do anything about? Ms. Wood answered those words should be deleted. Commissioner Toerge noted the following: • This project is in a highly visible location and the two dimensional drawings do not give a good enough perspective on really what these buildings would look like. Story boards are helpful to show the windows, railings, texture, colors, roof and we haven't seen that. The landscape plan I am not sure that I can understand it without more detail. I have not seen any information on the site lighting or site signage. There is no design of the entry gate. • 1 recognize the need to move this item forward given the time constraints, but I wonder if we can call those items back for our review, significantly the site lighting. How will that be reviewed and how will the public be given information on this issue? • When we review projects, there generally are standards that we have to go by in the Zoning Code. Apparently, there is no standard for senior affordable housing and the parking required in our Zoning Code. • A multi - family project of this size that was not senior affordably restrictive would require 300 resident parking and 75 guest parking places. In this particular case, the parking provides less than 1 resident parking space per bedroom. There are 180 bedrooms, thus 180 parking spaces, of which 3 are to be used for employees and 30 of them are to be reserved for visitors, that leaves 150 parking spaces for 180 bedrooms. • There is a potential that this facility could house up to 360 seniors and we are providing 150 parking spaces. . • Looking at this project with the lack of service amenities within walking 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 distance, such as recreational, shopping, medical services and eating establishments indicates to me that the people at this site are going to be driving more than the typical senior site. • A provision of seniors at age 65 or higher might help with the parking ratio. • Given that there is no standard and having asked for more information at the last meeting, I believe that this project is underparked. I am having a hard time right now with this project. I know there is support for it and I support the concept. However, I believe there is physically going to be a parking problem on that site. • Given that there is no standard in our City books, and given the justification from the traffic engineer and the staff report does not get me there, I can't support it. • 1 ask the applicant if there is any area on the site where more parking can be found? Public comment was opened. Bill Whittey, partner of Related Companies noted the following in response to the previous comments: • You can increase the number of parking spaces relative to the number of units by reducing the number of units. • This project is not only age restricted, it is income restricted. • A similar project in La Mirada that has 161 units with the same income level, further from shopping, with 1.1 parking spaces per unit, is very successful. This project is the same mix of 20% 2 bedrooms and 80% 1 bedroom. • The average age of the resident is between 72 and 75 because that is where the demand comes for affordable living. Those ages have a significant impact on the parking demand. • There is no additional area on the land without getting further into the hillside or the retention basin to put additional parking. • The one bedroom units are almost exclusively occupied by a single person, usually a woman. • The two bedroom units are an even equal mix of single people and couples. • The income is a total household income. Ms. Wood added that the maximum income for a two person household at this time would be $36,800 and that would be at the slightly higher 60% median income, and would be a little lower for those units restricted to 50%. She added that both state law and the City's Housing Element require that for projects that are 100% affordable, as this one is, that we provide a 25% density bonus. The base allocation of the units for this site and zoning is 120 and when we apply the 25% density bonus, we reach 150. If we needed to eliminate a few units to make the project work physically that would be one thing, but to reduce the number . significantly would, I fear, have us running afoul of those policies. 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Mr. Whittey added that there is a covenant running with the land guaranteeing this affordability for 55 years. These conditions apply now and will not allow this to become condominiums or become unaffordable. At Commission inquiry he added that there has not been a parking problem at any other of his facilities given the similar ratios. The suburban locations typically even affordable have the highest parking demand. These are among the highest I have seen. Our managers would address any problem with multiple cars, however, it has never been an issue. If we design this project as a suburban location with a San Francisco type requirement of .3 or .4 to 1, then it certainly would be a problem. We are not attempting to apply one standard to all projects, they are different. In our experience, the parking will be sufficient, including in a higher income suburban location. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich for approval of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Use Permit No. 2003 -003, Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -011, subject to the findings and conditions of approval within the attached resolution with the following modifications: • Condition 15 to read: The final landscaping plans shall be prepared in a • manner that all trees along the perimeter of the site as well as interior site trees, determined to be located within the line of sight of any public view corridor, shall be of a species that will not impair the public view corridor or shall be trimmed and maintained so as not to impair view corridors. Commissioner Toerge asked how the issue of site lighting will be addressed. Commissioner Tucker answered that it is covered with the mitigation measures specifically on page 29. He then asked that the word mafedaify be added twice before the words impair. The maker of the motion agreed. Commissioner Gifford asked to include in the motion the deletion of certain language in Section 3.2b, which would then read: b. The proposed grade and related development will not result in the loss of any public views and is consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. The project has been designed to be below the grade of surrounding parcels to the east. The maker of the motion agreed Commissioner Gifford noted that Mr. Lee was concerned that the height had been lowered but the grade had been elevated. When the Planning Commission looked at this project before, we were talking about a grade that was elevated, so the lowering is a 'true' lowering. . Vote on the motion was called: is INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Excused: Kiser SUBJECT: Thai Del Mar - (PA2003 -002) 2754 East Coast Highway Request to amend Use Permit No. 3153 to allow a change in operational characteristics from a take -out restaurant to a full service, small scale restaurant and to permit the addition of customer seating which is prohibited by the existing Use Permit Mr. Bob Wynn, representing the applicant noted the following: • The restaurant is 52 feet long and 11.5 feet wide. • The current use in this restaurant violates the existing use permit that had been issued in 1985 that did not allow sit down seating. • In 1997, the applicants bought the establishment and at that time there were tables and chairs in the restaurant. The present owners thought that the seating was a legal use. It was an obvious assumption that sit down ' seating was allowed, but it was erroneous. • The applicants have read the staff report and concur with staff's findings With one exception, the restroom. Two bids were obtained for the construction of the unisex restroom. He asked that the Commission remove this condition as the bids come in at $18,500 and $17,950 just to replace the current restroom. The Code will require a handicap accessible restroom and in order to do that the price would be increased to $53,850 and $55,500 which is about 30% more than the current bids to replace the one that is in the back of the restaurant now. • They have one year remaining on the lease and an expense of this kind would be difficult to agree to and to meet. Commissioner Selich asked if the Planning Commission had the ability to waive the restroom requirement. Ms. Temple answered it is not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to waive such a requirement, however, we could provide the maximum amount of latitude for the applicant to work with the Building Department to see if there is any other possible means of resolution by adding to the wording on condition 16 , '...or the Building Department finds that this is not required ....... If the Building Department can find any provision in the Uniform Building Code or the Handicapped Access Code to either waive the requirement or use another alternative to the one that has been suggested, that would all be consistent with the conditions. There is only one year left on the lease, but the applicant could reinstate the non - seating restaurant operation and then work on a lease extension that would justify such an • expenditure. 16 INDEX Rem No. 5 PA2003 -002 Continued to 04/03/2003 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Ms. Clauson added that Ms. Temple's suggestion would give more flexibility for the building official and then any appeal of that decision or waiver goes to the Board of Appeals that deal with building issues. That would be the route the applicant can take. Commissioner Tucker confirmed that the seating in the restaurant triggers the need for something that otherwise does not need to happen. You have an approximate 600 feet space, and the handicap restroom takes up a lot of room. Commissioner Gifford noted that she would not want to create some exceptional situation that remains after a new lease is negotiated. If your client is intending to continue business in this location, now may be the appropriate time to negotiate a new lease. Mr. Wynn presented some language for condition 16: If the use is modified in the future with RSC Zoning or if a new five year lease is issued, or if a remodel is performed involving $1,000 then the applicant is required to obtain permits for the restroom, etc.....' Ms. Temple answered that she would have to take that language back to the building official to see if it meets the requirement of the Uniform Building Code. We would have to continue this item for a couple of weeks if the Commission decides that is what should be done. We can attempt to find out if it was not required as well. To change the language as Mr. Wynn has suggested, I would like to consult with the Building Director before the Commission actually accepts this language. Mr. Wynn conjectured that if that requirement is not in there, but you just amend the original use permit to allow sit down seating and don't even mention restrooms, in my opinion the requirement of the restroom wouldn't be impacted by the State Law. If you don't mention the restroom, are they allowed to have the sit down seating? He then read a letter from Mr. Paul Connelly in support of this restaurant. . Ms. Clauson noted that this condition was put in so that the Building Department would know that it needs to be done. It is a matter of dealing with them on the State Law requirements. It is not a Planning Department requirement. Vice Chairperson McDaniel noted that since this has been brought to our attention, if we do not concern ourselves with ADA situations, do we leave the City open to any issues? If we are aware of this and we didn't make them fix it, where does that leave the City? Ms. Clauson answered that she is not aware of how this would come to the attention of the Building Department; maybe you don't need a building permit to trigger this. I do not know how they process violations of State Law. I don't think taking out the condition avoids the requirement to comply with the building code; it may avoid triggering somebody's review of enforcing it. is Ms. Temple added that if the Commission wishes to proceed with this concept, they 17 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20.2003 need to continue this item for two weeks so that she could talk to the building official about his enforcement posture now that we are informed this is a requirement and to see if the lack of building permit necessarily would make their enforcement posture different. Ms. Clauson confirmed that it would be best to talk to the building official for the rationales, reasons, suggestions and alternatives that the applicant is proposing will get the some results rather than eliminate language that the Building Department requested. Commissioner Toerge noted: • Doesn't understand how accessible bathrooms cost three times what a regular one costs, I build them and they don't. • There are a number of restaurants in Corona del Mar that have indoor seating with restrooms accessible through the kitchen, they work fine. • We should do all we can to accommodate this applicant, even removing this condition. Commissioner Agajanian stated he would be in favor of continuing this item to see if there are alternatives to work with. It is obvious the applicant missed the 'table' condition in the first place. Commissioner Gifford noted she is uncomfortable removing a condition for the stated purpose of avoiding triggering the enforcement of a building code requirement and would like to see this item continued and suggested that the applicant talk to their landlord about their lease. Commissioner Selich noted he would eliminate the condition. Commissioner Tucker noted he would both eliminate the condition and continue the item. This restaurant would have to be radically changed with a new restroom. Public comment was opened. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve amendment to Use Permit No. 3153 (PA2003-002) based on the findings and conditions of approval within the attached resolution with the elimination of condition 16. Commissioner Tucker noted he would like to see a continuance to the meeting of April 3m to give the building official time to look at altematves and if it comes back with the insistence on this condition then next time I would not vote on the removal of this condition. He made this a substitute motion. Commissioner Selich noted he would withdraw his motion. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Excused: Kiser 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 I� n U SUBJECT: Tony Roma's and Bennigan's - (PA's 2002 -237 and 238) 2901 West Coast Highway Request for two Use Permits to allow two Eating and Drinking Establishments and to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance (ABO). The applications also include a request to modify required parking by reducing the total parking spaces provided Ms. Temple introduced Chandra Sloven, Assistant Planner who presented an overview of the staff report noting the following: • Application is for two restaurants at the same address in the former location of Aysia 101. • Site /project overview. • Parking modification based on the low and high turnover mix. • The requested patio allowance with office use on the third floor. • Parking plan, proposed valet staging area, renovation of basement parking; compact car parking. • Adjacent uses and proximity of residential uses. • Hours of operation, reduction in net public area from the previous use; potential for walk in use. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted: • This particular project was built with parking based on a demonstrated formula that relied on the mix of the uses within the whole of the project. • Because of the mixed uses and hours of operation, the principle concern is about lunch time services. • Staff has suggested that one of the operations could be restricted from opening at lunch time if the Commission feels that there is a potential for not enough lunch time parking. • 268 parking spaces are provided, with a total parking requirement of 331, but that lower number was deemed sufficient based on the mix of land uses. • A total of 170.6 parking spaces was allocated for just the restaurant with an additional 25 for a private club on the second floor. Commissioner Gifford asked about the compact and tandem spaces being grandfathered. The Commission has the ability to change the use permit. Mr. Edmonton noted that in reviewing the plan, the structure of the building was designed with compact spaces in mind. It is not a matter of re- striping as there is the matter of columns and walls. They can't take out columns and move them around to accommodate full size parking. This project had been approved with the use of tandem parking but is more open in terms of the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Toerge asked: 19 INDEX PA's 2002 -237 and 238 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 • Permanent valet on the other side of Coast Highway that eliminates crossing the road, how does that work? • It presumes the customers will be encouraged to park in this auxiliary lot. • How does the valet parking work? • The cars queuing out onto Coast Highway, how will that be eliminated? Mr. Edmonton answered: • The concern was if the valet was stationed solely at the restaurant site and they shuttle cars to the remote cars, the valet would be crossing Coast Highway on foot. Unfortunately, many years ago in Corona del Mar, there was a valet hit and killed crossing Coast Highway. • For many years the City has made the effort to not have valet operations that require a valet to be on foot crossing a highway. The thought was a valet being stationed there would be able to valet park cars that came there. • If the operation is to transfer a car from the front door of the restaurant to that remote site, they haven't told us how that would work. • The difference is we are concerned that when the valets are under time constraints, they would be less likely to cross at the signal. • The conditions of approval require that the final valet plan be developed and approved. We have not seen that yet. It is my experience that the remote lot will be used for customers last because they use up all the on- site spaces first. Ms. Sloven answered: • One of the conditions is that queuing be prevented by providing the valet staging area with the use of nine temporary valet spots to store cars. • An attendant will be sent out to Coast Highway and flag people in to prevent the queuing as this is a concern of the Police Department. Ms. Temple added that with the original approval of the John Dominis facility, the Planning Commission wanted to reserve the first row of spaces entering the parking structure for self parking. The ongoing operation probably ended up getting rid of that because people would compete for those few free parking spaces. The way this is structured, the valet is required to be on site at all times and handle cars going into the parking structure. Commissioner Tucker noted: • The proposed patio and potential noise that will be generated. Is there any detail on the railing? Staff answered no. • The patio closing time, 10:00 p.m. is suggested by the Police Department and 11:00 p.m. is suggested by the Planning Department. • Condition 6 confirms pre - recorded music. • Delete live entertainment and dancing because the applicant has not asked for it. Commissioner Agajanian noted: • Condition 20, no happy hour - where does that come from? He was 20 INDEX JO City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 answered it came from the police report. Commissioner Gifford noted: • Are all of the spaces compact spaces? How many are? • Based on experience, is that approximate proportion in which compact cars and full size cars occur today? • We are being asked to waive a number of spaces, but in effect just because we have to count a space as a full space even though it might be a compact space that doesn't mean that people who park their cars have to use them that way. They can take 3 compact spaces and use them for two SUV's. Are we in effect waiving actually more parking spaces than it would appear? Staff answered; • There are 44 compact car spaces in total. • The ratio has gone through cycles as compact cars were popular in the late 70's and through the 80's. That trend has certainly reversed over the last 10 to 15 years. • In 1988 the City stopped using compact parking spaces for development. • The advantage of a valet operation is they are in control and can put compact cars in the appropriate spaces whereas the general public pulls • into the first space they find, irregardless of what it is. Mr. Ed Fagan, architect, spoke representing the applicants. He noted they have read the staff report and accept the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. At Commission inquiry, he noted: • History of the site with the earliest plans including the compact parking. • Proposed valet plan is more aggressive and will distribute and plan most valets at the most critical times to deal with issues that have been brought up over the past few months. The valets will maintain an individual with a communications device at the remote location as well as at the main building. The employees will be parking at the off site lot first. • We have plans to have the glass at a guard rail height of 42 inches as required by code on the patio. • There are decibel ratings that we must subscribe to; there is no music; there is no bar, the patio is only intended for table space only. • Closing of the exterior dining is acceptable at 10:00 p.m. • The outdoor dining area shall be opened at 10:00 a.m. Public comment was opened. Gordon Barienbrock, citizen of Newport Beach and owner of Chart House and Billy's that are next door to this proposed use noted his support of the proposed project and that there will be adequate parking. Public comment was closed. • Commissioner Selich asked if the previous restaurant had a remote parking lot. He 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 INDEX was answered yes and that is the same lot referred to in the staff report. Commissioner Agajanian asked if condition 31 would be part of the parking management review by the Public Work and if it could be eliminated, or does it give additional strength if this is included as a condition? Mr. Edmonton answered yes; he would like to see it remain as a condition. Commissioner Gifford asked about condition 26 and the loss of tandem spaces. Mr. Edmonston noted that the policy used for tandem parking to meet the required parking number is that you should only have to move one car to get one car. Part of that is so that you don't move two or three and have to figure out where to put them as the third car is brought out. In reality, if you observe a valet restaurant, they will for their own purposes violate that and it works for them. We didn't want them to start jamming them in 3 or 4 deep and potentially have a problem. We have gone through several iterations of those floor plans showing how the parking would fit and that is what it relates to. The final count includes the spaces that we disallowed. The number in the staff report reflects what we think physically could fit and meet the criteria. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit Nos. 2002 -048 (PA2002 -237 and 2002 -048 (PA2002 -238) subject to the findings and conditions of approval with the following changes: • Last sentence of Condition 4 - reads, '....The hours of operation for the outdoor dining shall be 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday for both restaurants. • Condition 6 - delete all of the paragraph but the second sentence which shall be modified so that it now reads, "Any recorded background music shall be limited to indoor areas only.' • Condition 23 numbering was skipped. Commissioner Agajanian asked about condition 4, changing the time to 10:00 a.m. to cut down on the noise. Commissioner Tucker noted that he did that in case there were to be brunches. Commissioner Gifford asked about condition 6 and leaving in the specific prohibition language for live entertainment. Ms. Temple noted language, 'Live entertainment and dancing is prohibited unless an amendment to this use permit is obtained.' The maker of the motion agreed. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Excused: Kiser 22 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 23 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council on February 11th considered the Code Amendment for the Landmark Buildings and continued it to March 111h; considered and initiated the General Plan Initiation for the Dove Street proposal. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - The EDC reviewed the fiscal impact analysis of the economic study for the general plan update; the Dunes owners have worked out their insurance problems and will have fireworks this year. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - discussed at Study Session. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - Ms. Temple reported that the committee has directed that the LCP be fully reviewed by all department heads and that review has been accomplished. As a result of some of those comments, another meeting has been called to make certain changes, and then a mass printing of the document will occur in order that all the committees will receive their copies. A copy will also be sent to the Coastal • Commission Staff for their first look as well. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Gifford offered another sign for the Balboa Sign Amortization at Cassidy's that is a projection sign on the eastern location. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - no updates. h) Project status - no report i) Requests for excused absences - Ms. Temple reported that there are three Commissioners who have signed up for the Planning Institute as well as herself so they will be absent from the March 20th meeting. Commissioner Gifford added she would not be available for that meeting. It was then decided that there would be no meeting on March 20th. ADJOURNMENT: 10:1 S p.m. SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 23 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment