Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/23/2014 - Planning CommissionNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers —100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, January 23, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan III. ROLL CALL IV IV all PRESENT: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker ABSENT: None 1/23/14 Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner; Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner; Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner; Fern Nueno, Associate Planner; Jason Van Patten, Planning Technician; and Marlene Burns, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Hillgren invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on items not on the agenda, to do so at this time. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Chair Hillgren closed public comments on non - agenda items. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES - None CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2013 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Hillgren reported receiving comments from Mr. Jim Mosher and Vice Chair Tucker. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Seeing no one wishing to speak Chair Hillgren closed public comments for this item. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (7 — 0) to approve the minutes of December 19, 2013, as amended. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None Page 1 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 JAMBOREE SHELL GAS STATION (PA2011 -154) Site Location: 1600 Jamboree Street Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan presented details of the staff report addressing location, existing conditions, the request to expand a convenience store and create a storage area within vacated vehicle service bays at an existing service station and the addition of a Type 20 (Off Sale Beer and Wine) ABC license. Additionally, she addressed store hours of operation, added landscaping, proposed floor plan, site plan and recommendations. In response to Vice Chair Tucker's question regarding the landscape plan, Assistant Planner Whelan reported that the portion of land on the corner is owned by The Irvine Company whom the applicant will work with to grant approval for additional landscaping in this area. Vice Chair Tucker referenced Condition of Approval No. 25 and asked whether the hours allowed for the sale of alcohol should be changed to coincide with their hours of operation and Ms. Whelan responded in the affirmative. He inquired regarding applying Condition of Approval No. 27 regarding visibility from the outside and Ms. Whelan reported that there are doors on the side of the building and that the applicant can confirm their ability to comply. In addition, Vice Chair Tucker asked regarding Condition of Approval No. 32 and whether alcohol will be delivered from the location. Ms. Whelan indicated the condition would be clarified to preclude the delivery of alcoholic beverages. At Commissioner Lawler's request, Assistant Planner Whelan explained a Type 20 ABC license. She noted that the store can sell beer and wine for off -site consumption. In response to Chair Hillgren's question regarding Condition No. 24, Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill reported that it refers to any representative of the City within the course of the City's oversight of this establishment. She added that although Commissioners are representatives of the City, their scope and duties are limited by the Municipal Code. Chair Hillgren referenced Condition No. 28 regarding including signage in English and Spanish, Assistant Planner Whelan stated this is a standard condition recommended for approval from the Police Department. Chair Hillgren opened the Public Hearing. Fred Kim, Applicant, reported that the station is a family business and presented a brief history of the business. He addressed employee training and security and offered to respond to questions. Jim Mosher addressed hours for selling alcohol noting that there is a constitutional prohibition limiting the sale of alcohol during certain hours and the hours are part of the ABC licensing requirements. He commented on the Commission's authority to change those hours and felt that it is not in the best interest of the City to sell alcohol and gas together. Seeing no others wishing to speak, Chair Hillgren closed the Public Hearing. Regarding modifying the hours for selling alcohol, Deputy Director Wisneski stated that conditions can be established for doing so. Commissioner Kramer commented on modifying the hours for alcohol sales. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Kramer and carried (7 - 0) to adopt Resolution No. 1933 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011 -028 amending Condition No. 25 to strike 2:00 a.m. and replace it with 11:00 p.m.; deleting the words in Condition No. 32 "or deliver" and adding a sentence that alcohol shall not be delivered from the premises. Page 2 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 Chair Hillgren asked for amending the motion relative to Condition No. 28 striking the requirement for Spanish signs. Vice Chair Tucker felt that it should remain, as it is not a critical regulatory issue. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 3 NEWPORT JEWISH CENTER (PA2013 -206) Site Location: 2240 University Drive Commissioner Myers reported visiting the site with members of their Building Committee and that he is also a member of the Board of Temple Bat Yahm and that he spoke to the City Attorney who indicated there is no need for him to recuse himself on this issue. Planning Technician Jason Van Patten presented details of the staff report and the applicant's request. He addressed location, parking, existing conditions, areas for assembly and other uses, alternative plans, operation of the assemblies, capacities, parking for assemblies, parking requirements during various days and hours, review of the project for compliance with various regulatory requirements and agencies, the Parking Management Plan, other proposed activities and recommendations. He noted revisions to the Conditions of Approval which were distributed to the Commission. Commissioner Brown reported receiving communications with concerns regarding the impact from construction on other tenants, the possibility of adding a condition requiring no impacts to existing tenants and addressed square footage for assembly purposes. He reported that the calculation provides a more conservative parking requirement. Planning Technician Jason Van Patten reported there is a condition in the resolution regarding limiting noise from construction and stated that a condition can be added if so desired by the Commission. Commissioner Myers referenced a calculation within the staff report regarding square footage and parking requirements and asked staff to clarify. Planning Technician Jason Van Patten reported that the Zoning Code specifies that parking be based on seats or floor area. Vice Chair Tucker stated that it seems to him that up to thirty -six (36) parking spaces are associated with the second level and noted the need for construction staging. He stated that the staging should be taken into account and therefore a condition should be added stating that construction staging will not impair more than thirty -six (36) parking spaces. Chair Hillgren asked if the applicant is a tenant or owner of the property. Planning Technician Jason Van Patten stated that the applicant is in the process of purchasing the building. Chair Hillgren commented on the generation of parking demand in the long term. He noted that the highest - occupancy would occur after hours or on weekends and asked how that relates to the CC &Rs. Senior Planner Jaime Murillo reported that the CC &Rs allow non - exclusive use of the entire shared parking lot and allows a majority of business owners and members of the Association to provide a certain amount of parking. Chair Hillgren commented on avoiding certain uses taking up the entire parking area. Chair Hillgren opened the Public Hearing. Carol McDermott, Consultant of the Newport Jewish Community Center, reported that the Secretary Treasurer, who leads the Association, has assured her that he has the authority, if a majority of the building owners agree, Page 3 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 to an interpretation of the parking and to make sure that the entire parking is available to them. She commented on a possible change to Conditions of Approval No. 8 and 9. As part of the proposed language, it was intended to indicate that by using the number of seats, the parking would be met. She added that during certain holidays, there may be a larger amount of attendees and noted that a number of members will walk to services during high holy days and have been known to stay in local hotels where they can walk to the Center or use public transportation. She hoped that the Commission would agree to provide either an off -site agreement with the nearby YMCA for additional parking, or that the building owners that use parking would agree for the Center to use parking within the existing parking lot. When it was determined there were not enough facts to support the proposed change to the condition, staff did not present that to the Commission. However, she offered language to add to the findings, should the Commission wish to do so. She presented the suggested language to Findings B2 and E2 as "On the holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, daytime occupancy may be increased however; a reduced parking demand is expected based on Jewish tradition, that some members are expected to walk or use public transportation." She suggested a revision to Condition No. 8 to allow for the on -site parking agreement. She asked that the Commission consider that as a way to address the concerns that have been raised. Ms. McDermott reported that they have been monitoring parking and the parking lot for quite some time and there still remains an empty building in the center. She added that there has never been more than thirty (30 %) percent to forty (40 %) percent of existing parking utilized and that there are a substantial number of parking spaces for both a full occupancy on existing office buildings as well as use by the Center. She addressed construction impacts and noted that the Municipal Code allows for certain hours of operation for construction which is fully enforceable. She noted that they intend to include that within their contract and emphasized that all of the activities will be conducted inside the building; addressed community outreach efforts and noted their attempt to address issues of concerns that have been raised. She reported that staff has listed the kind of activities that will be provided including special programs and presented details of same. She asked that the Commission approve the project and requested the opportunity for rebuttal at the end of public comments. Chair Hillgren commented on the Parking Management Plan and the limitation of seating to 108 seats. He asked if a number of parking spaces can be specified relative to the building. Ms. McDermott stated that it would be helpful to review the floor plan of the second floor because it was a little misleading. She added that the second floor accommodates a multipurpose room and the children's area. She reported that because of the mix of uses, certain rooms will not be used at the same time. Chair Hillgren suggested limiting the parking to thirty -six (36) spaces during normal business hours unless otherwise approved by the Association. Ms. McDermott agreed. Barry Ross, Attorney representing Mobilitie LLC, distributed a handout to the Commission and stated that his client, Mobilitie, opposes the Conditional Use Permit. He commented on other buildings in the complex and their present owners, occupants and status. He reported that his client's business consists of telecommunications, utilizes approximately 140 parking spaces and that their employees generally work Monday through Friday with some working Friday nights and Saturdays. He added that his client never agreed to the Center and referenced an agreement with the Association that states in part, that the majority of members of the Association do not feel that the occasional weekend use of the parking lot by the Center is likely to create an overuse or otherwise cause a need. He reported that the Association never asked Mobilitie for its input regarding parking requirements nor was it invited to a meeting of the Association to discuss the issue. He listed reasons why the CUP should be denied and presented the list to be included as part of the record. Stephen Abraham, a member of the Center's congregation and nearby resident, spoke in favor of the CUP. He noted that approving the CUP will add to the quality of life of its members and nearby residents and asked that the Commission approve the CUP. He commented on his wife's insistence that he exercise more which he will now be able to do by walking to the Center and that the Commission will make his wife happy by approving the CUP. Jerry Werksman, a member of the Center's congregation and former President of the Jewish Federation of Orange County, spoke in support of the CUP. He stated that the Center has a religious but small group of Page 4 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 members and noted the need to meet on a regular basis. He reported that they have been looking for fourteen (14) years for an appropriate location that will accommodate them. In addition, he addressed their Friendship Circle which provides services for challenged young people. He reported that he has been attending services at the new facility, stated that he has never seen more than fifteen (15) cars in the lot and assured that it will not be overpopulated and that existing parking will be adequate. Philip Levy, a member of the Center's congregation, spoke in favor of the CUP and reported attending every Saturday service at this facility and has never seen more than fifteen (15) cars. He addressed the Center's involvement in the community and programs offered. He added that this will be a great contribution to the community and urged the Commission to approve the CUP. Pamela Patterson reported that she is an advocate for special needs children and the mother of a special needs child. She reported that her child has been in attendance at the Friendship Circle and that the program provides a very important service to the community. She encouraged the Commission to approve the CUP. Jim Mosher referenced a correspondence from Mr. Roger Cunningham regarding a previous tenant renovation on the site and noted that the property is in the Coastal Zone and adjacent to a channel that empties into the Upper Bay. He addressed building requirements and ensuring that the water adjacent to the property is protected during construction. Joanne Krupp spoke in support of the proposed CUP noting that she has attended services at the facility and has never seen more than twenty (20) cars in the parking lot. She added that people walk to the center and share cars and does not believe that parking will be a problem. She noted that the Center is making positive contributions to the community and urged that the Planning Commission approve the CUP. Marshall Krupp reported he is not a member of the congregation but is a former Planning Director for the City of Cerritos, has represented many municipalities around the State on similar issues and that his sister asked him to review the CUP application. He addressed comments by the attorney for Mobilitie LLC and stated that many of them have already been addressed by staff and that staff has done an excellent job in evaluating the matter from an objective perspective. He addressed the parking issue and circulation noting they have been appropriately addressed by staff. Additionally, he reported that many of the buildings already developed should have a certain amount of parking spaces and noted they are exceeding the number of spaces they are using if the spaces were distributed to those buildings. He added that during the day, the Center will actually use fewer parking spaces than if it was occupied with offices noting that it has created a positive impact during daytime hours that the building would be used. He acknowledged an impact during evenings and weekends with the Center requiring additional spaces. In terms of parking requirements during high holy days or other events, the Parking Management Plan has addressed that by requiring a special use permit which may have additional requirements by the City in terms of off -site parking. With regards to the appropriateness of the use, he stated that it is no less appropriate than the YMCA building adjacent to the property. He commented on the benefits of having a neighbor that is involved in the community who wants to do what is good for the community and wants to serve the people of Newport Beach and encouraged the Commission to support the CUP. Barbara Shapiro, a member of the Center's congregation, spoke in support of the CUP and commented positively on the services provided including the Friendship Circle. Darlene Weiner spoke in support of the CUP adding that the Center will make the community better. Carol McDermott commented on statements made by Mr. Ross and stated that it is important to note that the Center reached out to his client three or four distinct times. She reported there was a previous attorney representing the owner and that she emailed him as well as the owner with no response. She pointed out the location of the Center and Mr. Ross's client and that another building owner expressed concerns that there was going to be a preschool at the location. She indicated there would be no preschool because the facility does not have the appropriate open space for one and that the Center has never proposed a preschool adding that there was misinformation going around. She noted frustration with the fact that the owner of Mobilitie LLC has not responded to their attempts at communication and addressed specific comments made by Mr. Ross noting that she has monitored the parking lot, that there have been no more than twenty (20) cars in the lot at any time and that the parking volume claimed by Mr. Ross has simply not Page 5 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 occurred. Additionally, she reiterated that the Association Secretary Treasurer has indicated that a majority of the property owners are in support of the efforts of the Center and asked for the Commission's favorable consideration. Commissioner Lawler commented on the letter from the Association that restrictions would only be made in the event of persistent overuse. He asked whether the Center is prepared to afford the transaction in the event that Mobilitie takes action as to exclusive parking spaces that they would have a right to under the CC &Rs. Ms. McDermott stated she would hope that they could reach some understanding with the adjacent property owner and wants to be a good neighbor. If it were to come down to an official allocation between buildings, Mobilitie would be the building getting the fewest spaces. In that event, she believed that it would bear out that there is enough parking for everybody. She commented positively on the Rabbi's efforts in this matter. Seeing no others wishing to speak, Chair Hillgren closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Myers commented on the Conditions of Approval as amended and asked whether they are complete as presented. Senior Planner Murillo responded affirmatively. He added that if the Commission wishes to allow exceptions during the weekends and holidays, it can do so. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill added that her office reviewed the recommended language and has some concerns because the language serves to authorize off -site use on two days out of the year. She stated that generally, off -site parking arrangements are not limited to two days. If the Commission is inclined to accept it, there are additional findings included in the Zoning Code. She recommended that the two days be treated as a special event and that in reviewing the findings she recommends not limiting it to two days. Commissioner Brown asked if the City Attorney's office needs additional time to review the matter. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that the Commission could take action, the issue relates to the particular findings that relate to off -site parking. Chair Hillgren asked whether there are additional requirements that should be made adding that this seems like a basic construction job. Senior Planner Murillo stated this would be a typical tenant improvement type of construction and noted that a condition can be added to address construction activities and staging. Regarding the appropriateness of this use within the zone, Chair Hillgren asked if there are any issues associated with zoning. Senior Planner Murillo explained the current zoning for the area and noted that the proposed use would be considered a personal service -type of use. In terms of the Zoning Code, he reported that this kind of use is conditionally permitted and is compatible with adjacent uses. In terms of parking and traffic analysis, Chair Hillgren asked if there is anything missing that needs to be addressed. Mr. Murillo referenced the Institute of Traffic Engineering Manual regarding trip generation and stated that there are no issues. Chair Hillgren referenced comments regarding this being a violation of the CC &Rs and stated this is an issue to be addressed between the property owners. Mr. Murillo referenced Condition No. 11 that indicates that if there are any issues related to the CC &Rs that would restrict the assembly use access to parking, the City must be made aware. He added that staff has confirmed that the building owner has signed the application. Page 6 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 Vice Chair Tucker reported that the Commission is a land -use body. It is not in the business of evaluating the desirability of particular programs that a user offers but rather the Planning Commission considers only land use issues such as compatibility of uses and parking. He stated that the CC &Rs are agreements between private parties and that the Commission is authorizing a use, but it has no power to supersede the provisions of a private party agreement. He added that the current occupancy of a facility is irrelevant, but rather the consequence of full occupancy is what the Commission is bound to consider. He also and suggested adding a condition addressing Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur each for one day, each year and the exception to Condition 8 could only be based upon a written agreement for that one day. If more parking is needed, the Center could develop an agreement for thirty -three (33) more spaces from people in the park on- or off -site. He stated that he likes the language as it the draft was written. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill agreed that it is a unique situation since they are only asking for two days. If the condition did not have the off -site parking option, she would have no concerns. The City requires all uses to be parked on -site and that special times during the year would be considered a special event for which there are processes to be followed. She added that her concerns as far as the requirements of the Municipal Code, are raised by the inclusion of "for off - site" in the added language. She referenced Condition No. 17 relative to special events permits. She suggested including in the findings, that this relates to two days which are not the normal operation. To the extent that they do not, then they would have to secure off - site parking that is available. Vice Chair Tucker suggested adding language that clarifies that the applicant must obtain a written agreement for on -site or off -site parking each year as he doubted a multi -year two day a year agreement was practically obtainable. If no agreement were obtained for a given year, then the limitation on seats to 108 during weekday, day time hours would remain. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill added that the language shall state that the off -site parking is "conveniently located" and that it "will not create any undue traffic hazards or impacts to the surrounding area ". She suggested that the language be included in the findings as well as the Conditions of Approval. In terms of Condition No. 17 related to special events, she suggested it be identified that the condition does not apply during the two holidays. Vice Chair Tucker agreed with doing so. Chair Hillgren referenced Exhibit B, bullet point number 2 and suggested that "religious facility" be identified as the second floor. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill added that when staff interprets a condition, it should remain consistent with what the City does in terms of Council's prior approval. Chair Hillgren suggested that it state that it would remain as reflected in Condition No. 8. Vice Chair Tucker added that it should reflect "other than during Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur ". Vice Chair Tucker suggested that it be addressed now rather than having the applicant go through the additional time and effort to apply for something that will need to be repeated every year. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill reported there are several triggers to the requirement that special activities need a special event permit. It will not be for the purposes of an off -site parking agreement on two days for the site. That would be the qualification language added to Condition No. 17. Ms. McDermott reported that the conditions, as modified, are acceptable. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Kramer and carried (7 - 0) to adopt Resolution No. 1934 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -023 with the amended language to Condition No. 8 and bullet point number 2 within the Parking Management Plan and Condition 17 and the condition regarding construction. Page 7 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO.4 NEWPORT HARBOR YACHT CLUB (PA2012 -091) Site Location: 720 West Bay Avenue, 800 West Bay Avenue, 711 -721 West Bay Avenue, and 710 -720 West Balboa Boulevard Associate Planner Fern Nueno provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing architectural style and colors, details of the application requested, parking, purpose of the request, prior meetings and analysis related to the project, adjustments to parking and the Parking Management Plan, changes to the resolutions regarding consistency with coastal access policies and recommendations. Chair Hillgren opened the Public Hearing. Jeff Gordon, representative of the Yacht Club, stated agreement to the Conditions of Approval, briefly described the intent of the project and offered to respond to questions from the Commission. Chair Hillgren asked regarding review of the valet plan by the Public Works Department as required by the Parking Management Plan. Mr. Gordon stated that approval would be a one -time plan, and addressed the hours of operation. Scott Robinson, 717 W. Balboa Boulevard, stated he owns the property directly across the street from the Yacht Club. He expressed concern that the increased height of the new structure would obstruct his view. He reported attending a previous outreach meeting with the Yacht Club where he expressed concerns regarding the proposed height and footprint of the building, obstructing their view, and possibly hindering the property's value. He requested that the Commission reconsider the height before approving the project. He reported that the Yacht Club promised to do a sightline study from his home but that it has yet to be done. He asked that the matter be considered before approving the project. Seeing no others wishing to speak, Chair Hillgren closed the Public Hearing. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry regarding the Conditions of Approval related to construction activities, Associate Planner Nueno stated that there are policies and conditions that will be enforced throughout the project construction. These standard regulations are not repeated as conditions. Deputy Community Develop Director Wisneski added that all the details the Commission would usually see are encapsulated in the Conditions of Approval. Chair Hillgren noted that they are usually included in a list which was not provided at this time. Commissioner Ameri commented that the next level of approval will address these issues. Ms. Nueno confirmed that additional review and requirements will occur during plan check and building inspection. Vice Chair Tucker asked staff to comment on view rights from private properties over private property. Ms. Nueno reported that the Code does not offer protection of private - property views but that the Commission is reviewing details of the application relative to building heights, and that staff considered the request and some of the requirements relative to raising the grade. She added that the applicant designed the project within the existing building footprint. Vice Chair Tucker commented about protecting public views and noted there was a conscious decision by the City not to protect private views. Ms. Wisneski added that the City's regulatory documents focus on protection of public views and not private views. Page 8 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 Vice Chair Tucker stated he would like to comment specifically regarding public access. He referenced requirements within the Coastal Act and discussed the issue of Coastal Access as follows: Coastal Act Section 30212 (a) requires public access be provided by new development except where "adequate access exists nearby." The beaches and bay in Newport Beach have always had abundant public access. The area in which the Newport Harbor Yacht Club facility is located is no exception. The shoreline of the bay is reachable by street ends of streets that are proximate to the Yacht Club. A large public beach is located a block away between 9th and 10th Streets very close to the Yacht Club. Lateral access to the bay is also a block away along Buena Vista for several blocks. Access to the ocean is provided to the south, also near the Yacht Club. An additional public project is currently under construction at 16th Street on the bay which will provide a park, beach, public dock, and other public facilities in a Coastal Commission approved project known as Marina Park. In short, the Yacht Club is in a neighborhood where public access is truly outstanding. It is not only beyond adequate but it is indisputably nearby. No legitimate argument can be made that public access is not adequate and nearby. Accordingly, the City does not have the legal authority to require the Yacht Club to provide public access due to an express provision of Section 30212 of the Coastal Act. Vice Chair Tucker added that he would like the Commission to make a findingthat specifically details the substantial coastal access nearby the project. He stated that he would list the facts supporting the finding in the same format as other findings in the Resolution and that each fact should be a separate paragraph in support of the finding. He stated that this finding along with his previous comments would indicate why the Commission feels it does not have the authority to impose public access. He also noted that while the City does not have the power to require public access, the Yacht Club is part of the fabric of the community and as such that residents of Newport Beach use the facility as guests of the Yacht Club and some sailing programs offered by the Yacht Club are open to children of non - members. He concluded that in some respect, a not insubstanial portion of the local community is able to enjoy the project. He further stated that the Yacht Club project will provide a better experience to its members and their guests that can only be accomplished with a new building and code enhancements pertaining to disability access, health and safety protections, and flood protection.He indicated that he believes the upgrade of older facilities that are used by a substantial number of residents should be encouraged without imposing undue requirements. He stated the the motion should incorporate the findings and the facts mentioned previously. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (7 - 0) adopt Resolution No. 1935 recommending City Council approval of: General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -003, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -003, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA 2012 -006, Minor Use Permit No. UP2012 -016, and Planned Development Permit No. PL2012 -002 with the addition of a finding and all of the facts supporting the findings as indicated above. Vice Chair Tucker reported that the Yacht Club has one weekend a year (opening day) where they exceed their parking limit and asked if there is a way to make it a permanent requirement. Ms. Nueno reported that the parking requirement is based on the assembly area rather than the number of people coming to an event. She added that the applicant has requested this because the number of attendees for a special event is typically fewer than 225. In the event that they reach more than 225, they have requested a special permit be granted. Vice Chair Tucker questioned why they would have to go through the process every year when it is known that it will happen every year. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill recommended not doing that, and provided the rationale behind it regarding the Municipal Code regulatory requirements. She compared it to and mentioned that it was different than what was done for the previous agenda item. Vice Chair Tucker stated that his motion stands without addressing opening day. Chair Hillgren asked for further discussion and seeing none called for a vote on the motion. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (7 - 0) adopt Resolution No. 1935 recommending City Council approval of: General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -003, Coastal Land Page 9 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -003, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA 2012 -006, Minor Use Permit No. UP2012 -016, and Planned Development Permit No. PL2012 -002 with the addition of a finding and all of the facts supporting the findings as indicated above. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 5 VALLELY MIXED USE (PA2013 -185) Site Location: 508 South Bay Front Associate Planner Fern Nueno provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing location, zoning, existing conditions, vehicular and pedestrian access to the site, details of the applicant's request, setbacks, architectural style, floor area, compatibility with surrounding residences and businesses, adjustments to parking requirements, details of the requested variances, constraints of the site, floor plans, existing non - conforming uses, and the need for discretionary review related to mixed -use projects. She presented alternative options and the discretionary applications required to implement those options, including a conditional use permit to address the requirement of on- street parking and a variance for floor area. She addressed additional findings required and noted that the City received three (3) letters stating opposition to the project. She presented recommendations as stated in the staff report. Chair Hillgren opened the Public Hearing. John Morgan, Project Architect, reported working closely with staff on this project and noted that the site is constrained because of the specification of the lot. He stated that staff has done a good job in addressing issues of concern and offered to respond to questions from the Commission. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry regarding the commercial space, Mr. Morgan stated that it will be an office use. Chair Hillgren confirmed that currently it is a single - family home and there is not commercial use. Mr. Morgan responded that there is an office space that has been used for a number of years and explained the lease of boat slips and requirements in the operation of the marina. Chair Hillgren confirmed the nature of the business and asked regarding other marine uses. John Vallely, Property Owner, stated that the block has always been commercial. He addressed opposing comments regarding this being a residential area, noted that it is a commercial area, and that the claim by Mr. Hawkins that this is a dense residential area is incorrect. He added that all three sides of the property have been developed to the maximum, including the residential property, without objection and that he has managed this property for several years as a marina and rented boats for several years prior. He stated that boat rentals require many more parking spaces. He commented on efforts to address neighbor concerns, noted that he manages the property and others in the area, and offered to respond to questions from the Commission. Commissioner Brown asked regarding the business and whether there is any reason for people to park where his office would be. Mr. Vallely stated that he has managed the property since 1975 and there has never been any reason for any tenant to visit the home. He reported that he has six (6) boat tenants currently, five (5) of which live on Balboa Island and walk to their boats, one (1) is out of the City. He has a waiting list of several Duffy operators that will take the next space available who live in Balboa Island and will walk to the facility. He explained the parking issues related to people that are mooring their boats off - shore, bringing their boats in and walking to their cars. Page 10 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 Vice Chair Tucker commented on the present zoning of the property and asked whether there would need to be a commercial element to it. Ms. Nueno responded affirmatively that the site could be all commercial, or part commercial and part residential, but not all residential under the existing land use and zoning designations. Vice Chair Tucker asked how a commercial element could be worked in and questioned if the ADA parking space was required. Ms. Nueno reported that the Building Code requires a handicap parking space which is currently being proposed. Vice Chair Tucker clarified that a CUP runs with the land and therefore the Commission should not unduly dwell on how the current applicant intends to use the property, but rather what the property can be lawfully used for under the granted entitlement, i.e. by someone else years from now. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry regarding water - related uses, Ms. Nueno listed what those potential uses might be. Ms. Nueno noted that the mixed use will allow commercial /retail office uses within commercial districts and that the change in use would be required to meet Zoning Code requirements regarding use and parking. She continued that a restaurant use would require additional use permit approval and the parking requirement would be greater than the proposed project. She added that the water - related use does not have to be required but that the goal is to promote water - related uses. Vice Chair Tucker pointed out that the commercial part of this project could be built out with no tenant and that is has to be used according to the zone. He added the lawsuit filed by Mr. Vallely against the City is unrelated to the matter before the Planning Commission. In regards to the connection to the marine operation, Chair Hillgren asked if there is a connection between approval or denial and the use of the dock. Assistant City Attorney reported that the litigation currently ongoing is a separate issue and involves whether or not there is a dock permit and whether or not it is required. Chair Hillgren clarified there is no need to consider parking associated with the dock. Harry Carmack, Attorney for the parties involved with the petition to Federal Court, commented on the opposition letters received by the Commission. He agreed with Vice Chair Tucker that the issue has nothing to do with what is before it at this time. He offered to respond to questions from the Commission. James Parkhurst, adjacent neighbor, expressed concerns regarding the pressure on parking and stated that if the use of the property would continue as present, he would not have an issue with it. His concern is if it converts to other uses in the future. Additionally, he addressed access to the dock which will be impacted in terms of parking availability and demand. Jim Mosher commented on the building rendering and stated that unless the applicant is interested in purchasing adjacent properties, he has trouble relating the rendering with the site of the residential property. Susan Riddle, adjacent neighbor, stated that she was under the impression that the applicant was required to provide four (4) parking spaces for the commercial portion of the project and requested clarification on the matter. She requested that the Commission deny the application and expressed concerns regarding the variance requested, reducing parking requirements to just one (1) ADA parking space and requires that the applicant apply for a dock permit which has been denied and therefore, the property is out of compliance. She noted that the dock project would encroach on her thirty (30) feet of water -front and that the area cannot accommodate parking overload. Additionally, she reported that the neighborhood is not equipped to handle additional parking overload, that the area is not equipped to handle a commercial component and that the Page 11 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 matter would set precedent. She listed privileges that the applicant would enjoy that are not given to other Balboa Island residents. Robert Hawkins, representing Friends of Balboa Island, reported that the reason the focus is on the current use is that the staff report uses the current use to minimize parking demand. He added that the Commission cannot find that the Parking Management Plan is adequate. He noted the need for the Commission to review the Walker parking study since it substantiates the opposition to the parking waiver. He added that streets at this location are over parked and that to waive parking will negatively impact the area. He stated that the CUP cannot be granted and that they should build a structure that meets the lot. He added that because of the parking issues, the required health and safety finding cannot be made. He urged the Commission to reject the project. Seeing no others wishing to speak, Chair Hillgren closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Brown's inquiry, Ms. Nueno noted that different uses have different parking requirements. She stated that the docks are a completely separate issue and is reviewed by the Harbor Division. What the Commission is considering is the office use proposed for the first floor. In reply to Chair Hillgren's inquiry Ms. Nueno added that an office use would be allowed since it would be his business and would be a separate issue regarding use of the office. She reported that currently the office is being used for dock rentals, not boat rentals, and that the Commission should be considering an office use, regardless of what is going on on the water side of the property. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill pointed out Condition of Approval No. 5 relative to a change in operation. Vice Chair Tucker wondered if it is possible for the pier to be owned separately from the house. Ms. Nueno did not believe so. Commissioner Ameri commented on approving a variance and stated there are no special conditions that can satisfy the Commission to approve less than the required parking for this site. He expressed concerns regarding setting precedent. He stated he cannot justify reducing parking requirements. Vice Chair Tucker noted that if commercial space is required, the size of the lot made it all but impractical to have a viable commercial space with all required parking since there was effectively no place to add more parking. Chair Hillgren commented on the need for the constraints of site and noted that any development consistent with mixed use zoning puts the Commission in a position where they have to evaluate and consider a variance, which is unique to this property. He added there is a limited stretch of bay front properties designated for mixed use. Commissioner Lawler commented that the commercial use is required, and this is a unique situation with special circumstances. Chair Hillgren further discussed the alternatives and discretionary review required for those options. Commissioner Ameri commented on the need to satisfy the requirements noting there is an alternative to meet the requirements to remedy the situation. Chair Hillgren reported that the Commission has the opportunity to decide which variance is most desirable and which use is more compatible. Commissioner Ameri addressed the constraints noting that the requirements cannot be met in this area and stated that the land use can be allowed if certain conditions are met. He reported that land use is not a right but rather a privilege. Chair Hillgren commented on the options presented and stated he agrees with the project based on the testimony regarding impacts to the area. Page 12 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 Discussion followed regarding the square footage of floor area and its appropriate requirement related to parking. Commissioner Ameri stated that every time a variance is used it violates the standard requirements. Commissioner Kramer addressed the findings and stated he would support approving the project. Vice Chair Tucker commented on the floor area and its corresponding parking allowance. He stated he would support the project with a smaller amount of commercial space and the waiver of one parking space. Discussion followed regarding the options available for the Commission's consideration and reducing the square footage of the commercial area to 500 square feet of net floor area and a waiver of one commercial parking space gained consensus. Ms. Wisneski commented on ensuring that the Parking Management Plan includes language that the future use is consistent with providing one space per 250 square feet of net floor area or less. Motion made by Chair Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (7 - 0) adopt Resolution No. 1936 approving Site Development Review No. SD2013 -004, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -018, and Variance No. VA2013 -009 and as amended and discussed above. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski commented on the next meeting which will include a briefing regarding the Lido Marina Village. Commissioner Kramer commented on other issues that needed to be addressed. Vice Chair Tucker reported that he will be unable to attend the next meeting. Discussion followed related to the discretionary actions required for the Lido Marina Village project. Vice Chair Tucker commented on existing use permits within the project and asked for a list of prior use permits issued. Additionally, Ms. Wisneski addressed the records retention policy and Council has directed that the matter return to them at the first meeting in March. Vice Chair Tucker commented on the importance of maintaining Planning Commission recordings. He added that many of the Commission's actions are final. Committee Updates: 1. Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee Ms. Wisneski reported that the Committee will meet in February to finalize review of the policies and that the draft EIR is expected in early March. 2. General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Ms. Wisneski reported that the General Plan /Local Coastal Program is moving along and will be meeting next week to discuss applicable regulations. Discussion followed regarding a request for a more detailed synopsis of the plan which has not been done as yet. It was noted that agendas have been included in the packets. Page 13 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/23/14 ITEM NO.8 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Brief discussion followed regarding attending the Mayor's dinner. ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Vice Chair indicated he will not be attending the meeting of February 6, 2014. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on January 17, 2014, at 3:30 p.m., in the binder and on the City Hall Electronic Bulletin Board located in the entrance of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive. Page 14 of 14