Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/2014 - Planning CommissionNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES IV. 0 VI. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers —100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, February 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. 2/6/2014 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski ROLL CALL PRESENT: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, and Kramer ABSENT Lawler, Myers, and Tucker EXCUSED: Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Jim Campbell, Principal Planner; Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner; Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner; Makana Nova, Assistant 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 JANUARY 23, 2014 Chair Hillgren reported receiving comments from Mr. Jim Mosher, Vice Chair Tucker and Commissioner Myers with corrections to the minutes of January 23, 2014. In addition, Chair Hillgren commented on additional corrections submitted by staff. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Seeing no one wishing to speak Chair Hillgren closed public comments for this item. Motion made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner Ameri and carried (4 — 0) to approve the minutes of January 23, 2014, as corrected. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, and Kramer NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Lawler, Myers, and Tucker Page 1 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility (PA2013 -195) Site Location: 1000 Halyard Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan presented details of the staff report including a description of the proposed project, requirements for a Conditional Use Permit, site development review, lot merger and variance requests. She addressed location, existing conditions, the proposed use, compliance with operational standards to integrate into the zone, conditions limiting hours of delivery, visitors and trash pickup, compliance with zoning requirements and circulation and access to the site. Ms. Whelan reported on the site development review addressing architectural design, materials and colors and open space. Regarding landscaping, she pointed out the additional trees to be planted and addressed elevations and details of the variance request. She reported that the Zoning Code requires a six (6) foot high barrier around the rear and side property lines which are adjacent to residential uses. Additionally, she noted that the lot merger meets all of the requirements of Title 19 and that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15332, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines. In reply to Chair Hillgren's request regarding possible alternative uses, Ms. Whelan reported that if developed as residential it could accommodate a maximum of twelve (12) units per the General Plan density or if nonresidential a maximum of 35,000 square feet. The memory care facility is proposing approximately 19,000 square feet. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine addressed traffic patterns for a residential zone compared to the proposed use noting that if there were condominiums on the site, there would be less average daily trip generation than for the proposed use but that trips are spread out during an entire day period because it will be a twenty -four (24) hour care facility and there will be employees going in and out at different times of the day. Chair Hillgren commented on the easement that runs between property lines for access and that one area had been carved out for private access and parking. Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill reported that the proposed conditions require the access to remain available for this proposed use. Regarding the issue of private easements and whether or not the Commission needs to impose any obligations on private parties, Ms. Mulvihill recommended against that because it is a private matter between two parties. The Commission's responsibility is to ensure that the subject party maintains easement rights. Chair Hillgren asked if the proposed flat roof deck could be created as outdoor space if the parties so desire. Ms. Whelan responded affirmatively. Chair Hillgren opened the Public Hearing. Carol McDermott, representing the applicant, noted that the applicants are in attendance as well as Rick Blomgren, project architect. She thanked staff for their help and in particular, Melinda Whelan. She reported that the proposed care center is replacing a noisy boat yard and that the applicants are producing an attractive, benign addition to the residential neighborhood. The memory care facility will serve patients, in a caring way, with Alzheimer's and dementia. She added that none of the residents drive and that many employees take public transportation. Visitors are minimal and are spread throughout the day and there is only one (1) trash pickup per week and one (1) food delivery per week, noting that it will minimize traffic on the easement. In addition, she reported that there are one (1) and two (2) story elements to the building which reduces mass and density of the site and will give it a residential character. She addressed the block wall and buffer landscaping, parking and access. She reported that the applicants have accepted all of the Conditions of Approval. She reported that letters of support were included in Planning Commission packets and read another into the record. She stated that she reserves the right to rebuttal after public testimony, if necessary. Page 2 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 Betsy Malone, President of the Newport Knolls Homeowners Association, stated that Newport Knolls supports the facility but is opposed to the proposed access for liability and safety issues. She added they are in favor of having Medical Lane as the ingress /egress to the facility, alleviating the burden of the Halyard easement. If the Planning Commission does not agree, she asked that the Planning Commission approve that the traffic access to the facility use the southerly portion of the Halyard easement which is the Beach House portion of the easement as the ingress /egress to the facility, which will satisfy the safety and liability concerns of the Newport Knolls HOA and will cut down on noise. She urged the Planning Commission to not approve access as proposed. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry regarding what would happen to parking on the southerly side if access were approved along this area, Ms. Malone reiterated safety concerns because of people blindly driving out of the garages, and that elimination of parking would not be an issue. Scott Christian, the Newport Knolls Homeowners Association, stated support for the project but expressed concerns regarding the Halyard easement. He referenced a letter submitted by the HOA in which photos are provided illustrating existing garages that back out into the easement noting the dangerous conditions and added that it will only get worse with additional traffic. He reported that homeowners do not have access to their garages from their units and most walk out into the existing lane of traffic to access their garages. He stated that the HOA has no problem with the facility using the southerly part of the easement. Jim Mosher reported submitting written comments earlier this afternoon and addressed parking noting that some spaces are leased to the skilled nursing facility adjacent to the subject site and wondered what will happen to those cars once the new facility is built. He expressed skepticism regarding the amount of traffic that will be going in and out of the facility and commented on the amount of trash cans necessary to accommodate the amount of people in the facility. He wondered regarding emergency access and traffic associated with 911 calls. He noted synergy between the proposed facility and the adjacent skilled nursing facility and asked regarding egress /ingress between the facilities and why they would not be interconnected as a unit. Susan Harris, Property Manager for Newport Knolls HOA, submitted a letter from one of the homeowners in the area. She commented positively on the use of the site but expressed concerns with the routing that the traffic will take and suggested moving the traffic to the southerly end of the easement for safety issues. She asked that the Planning Commission do the right thing and protect its residents. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Ms. Harris addressed her function and job. John Davey, Newport Knolls Homeowner, stated that he and his wife believe that the plans for routing traffic related to the proposed facility eliminates any sense of security and safety for Newport Knolls residents. He suggested that the facility use Medical Lane for access and that the Planning Commission consider the impact of the routing as presently proposed. He expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the traffic to his son's bedroom as well as noise, property values, and liability. He asked that the Planning Commission move access to the facility away from their homes to the southerly easement. Linda Simos, Newport Knolls Homeowner, stated that residents are not against the development but rather the proposed access. She opined that the traffic study is understated and addressed trash pickup, visitors, deliveries and employee parking. She urged the Planning Commission to consider the safety of residents. Mark Fasik expressed concerns regarding increased traffic for nearby residents. Andy Wolfe, Newport Knolls Homeowner, stated the homeowners are not against the project but expressed concerns regarding access to the facility adding that it should be through Medical Lane. He Page 3 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 suggested that if Halyard is used, access should be through the southerly easement for increased safety to Newport Knolls residents. Dick Randles expressed support of the proposed project and stated that Medical Lane is already too congested. Hugh Coffin, Attorney representing Newport Knolls, presented a letter to the Planning Commission. He addressed the proposed access to the new facility, noting that the homeowners support the development but not the proposed access and the driveway that goes on north side of the easement, adjacent to their garages and units. He stated that it's a safety, liability and maintenance issue and that the Planning Commission has discretion to require the driveway to be moved to the southerly part of the easement. He expressed concerns over the existing eucalyptus trees and a related maintenance agreement. He noted that it is an issue of safety and referenced a letter from the applicant's attorney agreeing to explore ways to alter access using the shared easement after the CUP hearing with the Planning Commission and no appeal has been filed. He stated that the Planning Commission should make a determination where the access should be and that if the Planning Commission is inclined to put it on Halyard, it should condition it to move it to the south, eliminating all of the designated parking spaces. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry regarding existing easement agreements associated with the properties, Mr. Coffin stated that he is aware of no agreement regarding the easement other than the license agreement the applicant has obtained from the Beach House. He added that the easement is assumed to be reciprocal and commented on a provision in the Code regarding a maintenance agreement between parties to the agreement. He added that on the Newport Knolls side, they are taking care of the maintenance and noted that no one is maintaining the existing eucalyptus trees. Marilyn Knowlden, Newport Beach Plaza resident, presented a petition of residents in support of the proposed facility providing there is no more traffic added to Medical Lane. Liana Foote, General Manager at Newport Beach Plaza, expressed support for the proposed project providing that Medical Lane is not used for access to the facility. John Kimball, Administrator of Crystal Cove Care Center, spoke in support of the proposed development but stated he would not support access to the property via Medical Lane as it is highly congested at present. Ryan Nath, Owner of Beach House Apartments, noted that his family owns the entire southern half of the easement and spoke in support of the proposed project. He opined that the development will improve everyone's property values, stated that the traffic level will not affect their tenants. He reported that the existing eucalyptus trees are on the property line and debris affects their side as well but that they are not in support of removing the trees. Kevin Dunlap, resident of One Nautical Mile and Board Member of One Nautical Mile Homeowner's Association, reported asking the applicant for a copy of the private easement agreement and not being provided with one. He added that the HOA hired outside counsel and have been told that there is no easement with the private facility. He asked that the Planning Commission not approve the proposed access if there is additional room required to go through Halyard. Speaking as a home owner, he believed that emergency access should be through Medical Lane as opposed to going through Halyard. He commented on traffic on 15th Street and felt that providing access through Halyard would increase traffic on 15th Street. John Webb, resident of One Nautical Mile, commented on increased congestion on 15th Street and expressed concerns with a facility requiring emergency access in terms of the speed of vehicles and noise. He asked that the Planning Commission consider the matter as it looks for access to the facility. Page 4 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 Patricia Francois expressed opposition to having Medical Lane be used as access to the proposed facility. She noted that it is very congested, that trash is picked up at 6:00 a.m. and there are problems with people backing up out of their driveways onto Medical Lane. Seeing no others wishing to speak, Chair Hillgren closed the Public Hearing. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry regarding access through Medical Lane, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported that staff reviewed access through Medical Lane and stated that it was designed as a drive aisle to provide for parking for adjacent uses. It was never set up to be a through street and functions for parking access. He added that in discussions with the Fire Department, it was felt that, as long as emergency access was maintained on Medical Lane, other access through Halyard would be a better function. In reply to Chair Hillgren's inquiry regarding general services (trash and whether two bins and one pickup per week is sufficient), Paul Hubbard, Founder and Owner of Plum Health Medical Group, stated they operate multiple nursing homes throughout the State and are familiar with trash needs. Because of the use of the site, picking up trash once a week, with two bins, is sufficient and customary. He commented on the operation of a memory care facility noting that it has minimal emergency traffic. Most of the emergency traffic in the area will be coming from Medical Lane. Ms. Whelan explained that the purpose of the existing crash gate is for the Fire Department and emergency vehicles to be able to access from Medical Lane to Halyard. Chair Hillgren noted there is a willingness among the interested parties to make the proposed development work and that the Planning Commission has been advised against placing conditions on property that is being controlled by private property owners. City Attorney Mulvihill explained that the Planning Commission's decision should be based on findings such as neighborhood compatibility or site design layout. She cautioned the Planning Commission against redesigning the existing easements because it may impose a legal requirement on private property rights. If the Planning Commission wants to look at an alternative design there is some flexibility and cautioned against using conditions to resolve a private issue. Chair Hillgren indicated he is encouraging resolution among those who have rights to the easements. Chair Hillgren reopened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant forward to respond to questions. Carol McDermott, representing the applicant, addressed the purpose of the existing crash gate noting that all emergency access is expected to come from Medical Lane and there would be no emergency vehicles using Halyard. She added that there is a Condition of Approval requiring a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet be provided for access on Halyard. It is the facility's responsibility to ensure that arrangements are made with all of the parties to the easement that it is feasible and noted that there is an existing sixty (60) foot easement, part of which is on the northerly portion and part on the southerly. There are different owners within that, but all four (4) parties have access to it. Regarding One Nautical Mile, she noted that the easement is shown on the Tract Map, which is included with their CC &Rs. The traffic proposed for this use, not including any emergency traffic, is no greater than when there were parked cars using the lot or when the boat yard was used and the facility will not exceed what was occurring previously. She addressed the length of the easement from Monrovia to the property adding that there is an existing speed bump in the area and that it is unlikely that traffic will be speeding. Ms. McDermott explained that the Conditions of Approval ensure the adequacy of access. Page 5 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 Commissioner Brown asked whether there has been a good -faith effort by the owners to communicate with surrounding neighbors about alternatives for access. Ms. McDermott reported that the property owners started discussions with Newport Knolls several years ago and that there have been repeated efforts for communication. All Newport Knolls residents were invited to a previous presentation and only one (1) showed up who did not want the trees removed. Although the owners have continually tried to work with residents, she added that it felt that they did not want to cooperate but would rather deal through attorneys. She added that a maintenance agreement was not presented previously but rather an REA which included conditions that can be modified and reconsidered at this point. She believed that it is in everyone's interest to clarify maintenance responsibilities and that elements are in place for all parties to resolve issues between themselves and she indicated the owners' willingness to do so. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry regarding using the south side of the easement, Ms. McDermott reported that the matter has not been adequately studied and there has been no design to review. She added that the owners are open to discuss the matter of increasing safety in the area. The easement currently provides for roadway access and has not been for parking but with the proximity of the college, she felt that the desire to maintain parking on the easement continues. In terms of using the southerly easement, it has only recently come to their attention and Ms. McDermott stated the willingness of the property owners to discuss the matter further with the appropriate parties. Although it is not completely infeasible, there are complications because the southerly part had tree roots affecting it but there are solutions that can be addressed. The matter deserves a closer look by the four (4) parties to the easement. In response to Commissioner Brown's inquiry, Ms. McDermott reported that the trees are within a small portion of the easement and in the portion owned by the Beach House. The owners of the Beach House have specifically indicated that they do not want to eliminate the trees. Chair Hillgren closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Brown encouraged the parties to come up with a solution adding that the Planning Commission has to stay within its authority. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill reiterated her caution against the Planning Commission trying to resolve a private issue through Conditions of Approval but added that the Planning Commission has options relative to the access to the project presented including offering alternatives. Commissioner Ameri commented on easement issues and noted that the Planning Commission does not interpret legal aspects of an issue but rather the mechanical physical aspects of the same. He stated that he bases his judgment on the findings of the Traffic Engineer and that getting into the various agreements regarding the easement, is outside of the Planning Commission's purview. Additionally he addressed the matter of Fire access and noted that the appropriate way to address the matter is according to the advice of the Fire Department. The Planning Commission should stay away from the easement interpretation. Chair Hillgren noted there is an unusual "S" turn in the proposed plan towards the Newport Knolls project and commented on "more comfortable" alternatives and the possibility of developing a better design. Motion made by Chair Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Brown to adopt Resolution No. 1933, approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -019; Site Development Review No. SD2013 -005; Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001 and Variance No. VA2014 -002 with the condition of moving the "S" turn so that it does not aim directly towards the existing Newport Knolls garage doors but would be further down the property. Page 6 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill reported understanding what Chair Hillgren is proposing and suggested that he include the basis for wanting that condition within his motion. Chair Hillgren explained that the condition would make it safer from a traffic point of view. City Traffic Engineer Brine asked for verification relative to keeping the remainder of the drive aisle on the north side of the easement and Chair Hillgren responded affirmatively. Chair Hillgren added that a twenty -six (26) foot wide access way must be maintained but it should be maintained where the opportunity exists to place it away from the existing Newport Knolls garages. He explained that it would be best on the southerly part in front of the garages. He explained his intention of moving the "S" turn. Ms. McDermott stated that the design is hard to agree to at this time but stated they could make it work. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated that keeping the drive aisle away from Newport Knolls is a safer design but that how that is accomplished would be up to the interested parties to work together to resolve the issue. Commissioner Brown seconded Chair Hillgren's motion and carried (4 — 0) as follows. AYES: Ameri, NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Lawler. Brown, Hillgren, and Kramer Myers, and Tucker Chair Hillgren thanked those who attended and spoke on this matter and hoped that the parties will be able to work together towards a solution. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill described the appeal process for the item via the City Clerk's office. ITEM NO. 3 Acacia Street Laboratory (PA2013 -247) Site Location: 20377 Acacia Street, Suite 200 Planning Technician Jason Van Patten provided details included in the staff report addressing location, existing conditions, surrounding properties and uses, the proposed floor plan, operating hours, consistency with the Zoning Code and General Plan and parking requirements. He added that the applicant is required to obtain clearance from the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and receive certification from the State Department of Health. Chair Hillgren asked regarding a Condition of Approval relative to medical waste. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported there are several agencies that regulate this type of use and there is a condition requiring them to comply with all local, State, and Federal laws. Chair Hillgren opened the Public Hearing. Greg Watkins, applicant, reported meeting with the Health Department and stated that the quantities of medical waste and hazardous materials are too small to require Health Department review. He added that there are hazardous waste bins for containers, consistent with Health Department requirements. Chair Hillgren closed the Public Hearing. Page 7 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 Motion made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner Ameri and carried (4 — 0) to adopt a resolution, approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -028. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, and Kramer NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Lawler, Myers, and Tucker ITEM NO.4 Uptown Newport Affordable Housing Implementation Plan Amendment (PA2014- 011) Site Location: 4311 & 4321 Jamboree Road, N/S of Jamboree Road, between Birch Street and MacArthur Boulevard Principal Planner Jim Campbell provided an overview of the staff report addressing background, requirement for an affordable housing component, details of the requested amendment, proposed plans, phases, next steps and recommendations. He noted that two (2) comments were received; one (1) from the Kennedy Commission in support of the amendment and the other from a nearby property owner who disagrees with the overall project. He noted the need to correct a typographical error in the approved AHIP related to the number of units in Phase 2 (564 not 544). In reply to Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted a discrepancy in the staff report indicating that the minimum number of moderate - income units required would be 369 not 367. Chair Hillgren asked regarding the concentration of affordable units within the buildings and Mr. Campbell reported that based upon the current plan with 97 very-low income units, it would be 15 percent of the Phase 1, and staff is not concerned with that level of affordability in Phase 1 and is supportive of the amendment. He added that there is no differentiation between the affordable and market -rate units. He explained the process of managing the density bonus. Chair Hillgren opened the Public Hearing. Bill Shopoff, Uptown Newport, stated that originally, when the project was brought forward they did not have a vision of where the affordable housing component would go and they have now taken it further as presented. He commented on their financial strategy and plans and they now know what they will build. He reported that they will remain as the master developer and that his firm will be a 50 percent partner in the 483 units that will include affordable units. He added that there will be a "for sale" component in the first phase and that additional information will be presented at a later date. Jim Mosher expressed skepticism about the project noting that at an early phase, a promise was made that the project is still in the Santa Ana School District and that they would attempt to move it to the Newport Mesa School District. He addressed deference of review by the Planning Commission on the park element to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and commented on how the Phase 1 park was approved without public restrooms. He added that the park will have a public art element but that it does not fit into the vision for public art as announced by the Mayor, last year. He wondered if the park will be in the best interest of the low- income residents who may be coming to Newport Beach. He referenced the letter from the Kennedy Commission noting that they encouraged modification of the AHIP to prioritize development of very -low and low- income housing during Phase 1. Chair Hillgren closed the Public Hearing. Secretary Kramer stated he is in favor of approving the amendment and that as long as the applicant takes care of affordable housing within the project, moving the amendment forward is a positive thing. Page 8 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 Motion made by Secretary Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Ameri to adopt Resolution No. 1935, recommending City Council approval of an amendment of the Uptown Newport Affordable Housing Implementation Plan. Chair Hillgren noted that he will support the motion and that implementing affordable housing early as opposed to later is a positive thing. The motion carried (4 — 0) as follows. AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: VIII. STUDY SESSION Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, and Kramer None None Lawler, Myers, and Tucker ITEM NO. 5 Lido Marina Village Study Session (PA2014 -002) Site Location: 3600 -3700 Newport Boulevard, 3400 -3444 Via Lido and 3400 -3505 Via Oporto Assistant Planner, Makana Nova, introduced Project Architect, Joseph Smart, to present the project scope. She noted this is a study session and an informational meeting for the public. It is not a Public Hearing item so there is no action proposed at this time. Joseph Smart, Project Architect, representing the owner, DJM Capital, shared the vision for the renovation of Lido Marina Village. He reported buildings; streetscape and landscape will all be renovated and remodeled to transform an area that has been in need of a facelift. He addressed the Lido Village Design Guidelines and stated they are confident that the project meets the intended goals or these guidelines. He addressed phasing and presented details of each of the eight phases proposed. He indicated they are prepared to start on the first phases of the project. In response to Secretary Kramer's question regarding the timeline for the various phases, Mr. Smart reported that they would like to start Phase 1 (renovation of the parking structure) immediately and are prepared to begin Phase 2 right after and move to subsequent phases after that. The goal is to have the first seven (7) phases complete in 2015. Secretary Kramer noted that the area is underdeveloped and underutilized and commended the owners for putting together a viable plan. He requested additional detail regarding what is being considered for the existing 3450 building, land uses and potential tenants. Mr. Smart reported they are proposing a complete renovation of the building within the existing footprint and they are currently looking at potential restaurant tenants and the potential of adding retail along the street front. Secretary Kramer asked regarding the existing alcoholic beverage license that runs with the land. Assistant Planner Nova reported that, relative to the 3450 building, there was a use permit in place but at one point it was revoked by the Planning Commission and appealed to City Council but the business owner went bankrupt and out of business. The building has been vacant for some time. The status of the use permit is currently in limbo and the intention of the applicant is to utilize the entire space as a restaurant. The Warehouse which was located in the building had conditions limiting certain areas for gaming and those areas that were used for gaming were not counted toward the parking requirement. To Page 9 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 use the full space, the applicant will need to apply for a new use permit to address the matter. She added that she has been working with the applicant to create a design that will not increase parking requirements. Secretary Kramer stated he looks forward to when the project comes before the Planning Commission adding that there are different options to be explored. Mr. Smart stated they are not proposing an entertainment type of facility but rather a restaurant that serves alcohol. Secretary Kramer commented on parking and the parking structure and asked for detail regarding this phase of the project as well as how the applicant will address the lack of parking due to large party boats in the area. Ms. Nova reported that the majority of work being proposed would be ministerial, that painting is currently underway in the parking structure and that interior demolition and improvements will move forward right away with ministerial building permits. Staff will review that for consistency with the Lido Marina Village Design Guidelines at that time. Awnings, lighting and landscape improvements will also go under that building permit ministerial approval. She reported that there are some right -of -way improvements and additional parking proposed which may require City Council review. In terms of discretionary applications, she reported that parking is the primary discretionary application that the Planning Commission will review. A parking management program will be developed to address parking and uses. She addressed existing use permits and proposed parking spaces in street areas throughout the project. There will be a parking deficit for retail uses and a parking waiver will be proposed but there are a number of considerations that go with the application to allow more intense uses to go into the site. Restaurants will need individual and separate use permits as well as an operator's license, if applicable. There is an application going forward for a comprehensive signage program which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Secretary Kramer commented on the need to understand the project from a holistic point of view and not individual applications. He asked regarding development of a master parking plan when it is unknown as to what the uses will be. Ms. Nova reported that staff is in the process of determining uses with the applicant and referenced a parking study they prepared that identifies the existing restaurant uses, which constitute approximately 15 percent of the center. Other uses that will require more intense parking include the existing fitness facility and medical offices. An application for the Conditional Use Permit is expected within the next week or two (2) and that the matter should be coming before the Planning Commission within the next three (3) to six (6) months. Mr. Smart acknowledged there is a parking issue and stated they have been working with staff to address same and prepare a comprehensive parking plan and parking management plan for the project. Secretary Kramer noted the need to be flexible regarding parking and not be overly strict. He requested additional detail regarding signage. Mr. Smart commented on a project identity sign to be located on top of the parking structure. Secretary Kramer encouraged flexibility regarding signage. Ms. Nova addressed other signage proposed including some that will need review by the Planning Commission. Page 10 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 Mr. Smart commented on the importance of signs to define the identity of the project. Regarding party boats, Ms. Nova stated they are currently located in the marina area adjacent to Lido Marina Village and their parking demands fall into Lido Marina Village. Staff is working with the applicant to address the matter as part of the parking management program. Ron Lorntzen, representing the project applicant, DJM Capital, reported that leases on the party boats are currently in discussion. Secretary Kramer commented on challenges with party boats including parking and the exhaust which they emit. Mr. Lorntzen reported that part of the new dock development is to move the party boats to the far east and away from restaurant areas. Ms. Nova reported there is a dock reconfiguration proposed, the majority of which will fall to the Harbor Commission's review, the parking demand for which will also be considered as part of the parking management program to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brown noted that renovation will not work unless retail can survive in the area and requested information regarding having viable retail in the area. Mr. Lorntzen stated that DJM is well -known for its ability to bring in proper tenants and that already, there is a list of good tenants that are interested in locating there. He acknowledged that the tenant mix is key to the project. Commissioner Brown asked whether the sign on the parking structure will be lit and Mr. Lorntzen responded affirmatively. The matter will be coming before the Planning Commission. The sign on the fagade is still in development. Commissioner Brown commented on existing access through Via Oporto and asked whether two -way access will be maintained. Mr. Lorntzen stated that having vehicle access brings people into the area and creates energy. At this point, the area will remain open for traffic. Commissioner Brown commented on the party boats and asked if consideration has been given to how big the slips will need to be. Mr. Lorntzen indicated they have a design that depicts slip sizes and how they would work in ratios that would be acceptable to the Coastal Commission and the City. Ms. Nova clarified that the Harbor Commission will be reviewing the application for reconfiguration of the dock area. Commissioner Ameri commented on the failure of the area and the appeal of the site. He expressed disappointment regarding the plans, noting that they are not for renovating or remodeling, but rather repainting. He stated that his vision would be to make the area appeal to the general public as an attraction for visitors to Newport Beach. He commented on the existing wall of retail and presented details of his vision for the area. He asked what the applicant will be doing, physically, to make the area attractive to residents and visitors to Newport Beach and increase visibility. Page 11 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 Mr. Lorntzen reported that the scope of work is limited because they do not own most of the property. He added that the proposed plans should initiate the right tenant mixes to make it appeal to prospective tenants and the public. Additionally, he commented on expanding the waterfront by making it more accessible and noted there are many reasons to go to Lido Marina Village. Commissioner Ameri stated that the renovation, as proposed, will not bring in new customers but that the right tenant mix may do so. He added that painting is not going to bring in new tenants and felt that the presentation is irrelevant. At the request of Secretary Kramer, Ms. Nova provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing parking, parking considerations for a potential waiver, square footage of the area, existing parking spaces and proposed parking spaces. She provided an overview of existing restaurant use permits within the center. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that staff will be looking at the length of time a use has been abandoned and the City's treatment of the use. Ms. Nova commented on the goals including looking at the use permits and determining what parking waiver(s) has been agreed to for each of the uses so that it can be applied to the parking management program. Each individual use will need to apply for a use permit. She addressed existing tenants and their related use permits. Chair Hillgren opened public comments. Jim Mosher commented on this being an opportunity to consider other potential in the area. He agreed that the area needs a much more drastic rethinking in order to make it work. He presented ideas as to what he would do with the property and agreed with Commissioner Ameri's comments. Diane Dixon commented positively on the present process and suggested increased exploration of the design concepts. She agreed with Commissioner Ameri's comments and noted the importance of making sure that a substantial improvement is made. She stated she will be working with members of the community to follow the project closely. Chair Hillgren closed public comments for this item. Chair Hillgren thanked the applicant and staff for the presentation. He stated that the Planning Commission wants to help them get to Phase 7 as much as possible and encouraged staff and the applicant to be thoughtful so that the Planning Commission can be thorough and efficient when it considers the matter. Commissioner Ameri stated that he would like to see demolition and a more substantial plan rather than just painting. He stated there is too much building and space and that windows should be opened up to the bay. He suggested that the applicant have a deeper look into the plans. Chair Hillgren encouraged the applicant to be thoughtful, creative, and build a place that will be a "people" place. The owner of a property along Via Lido, commented on the various developers and owners in the area and noted that he is responsive to changes. He noted that DJM has a real challenge on their hands and stated that he is anxious to work with them. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None Page 12 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 ITEM NO. 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski distributed a tentative agenda to help the Planning Commission understand what will be discussed in future meetings. The tentative agenda lists the project, a description of the project, what the required action is and CEQA documentation and design features to be shared with the Planning Commission in consideration each. She noted that there are no items for discussion at the Planning Commission meeting of February 20, 2014, and the Commission may tentatively be dark on that night. She reviewed upcoming agenda topics and major projects in process. Discussion followed regarding the Koll Development Plan. Additionally, Ms. Wisneski reported that a previous Planning Commission action related to the Newport Jewish Center was appealed today and will be considered by City Council. Committee Updates: Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee She provided an update on the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee and noted that policies are being finalized. She also addressed a traffic study and conclusions showing project - related impacts from the land use changes being proposed. The committee will be dark in March with subsequent meetings held in preparation for a formal presentation to the Planning Commission. 2. General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Ms. Wisneski provided an update on the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee and addressed present challenges being faced related to canyons and categorical exemptions and stated current objectives. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill addressed the importance of having Coastal Commission staff be involved in the meetings but they did not attend the latest meetings. Staff and the Committee will continue to work with Coastal Commission staff. Ms. Wisneski stated that the Coastal Commission staff had a conflict with another meeting and therefore, did not attend but that the importance of coordination has been discussed with them. Commissioner Ameri stressed the importance of having someone from the Coastal Commission in attendance. Staff is working on coordinating with them. Brief discussion followed regarding having summary minutes in the future. ITEM NO. 8 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT - None ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES - None X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. Page 13 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/6/2014 The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on January 31, 2014, at 4:30 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