Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 - Draft Minutes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, August 21, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Tucker III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker ABSENT: Kramer Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Michael Torres, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Patrick Alford, Planning Program Manager; Jim Campbell, Principal Planner; Ben Zdeba, Assistant Planner; and Marlene Burns, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Tucker 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 address the Planning Commission, Chair Tucker closed public comments. IV. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES- None V. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2014 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Tucker reported that he submitted changes to the minutes of August 11, 2014, as well as Mr. Jim Mosher. Chair Tucker opened public comments. Seeing none, Chair Tucker closed public comments. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Secretary Myers and carried (6 — 0) to approve the study session meeting minutes of August 11, 2014, as corrected. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Kramer VI. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 SANCHO'S TACOS MINOR USE PERMIT APPEAL (PA2014-058) Site Location: 3014 Balboa Boulevard Principal Planner Jim Campbell provided a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the location, surrounding properties, a description of the proposed project, existing conditions, existing permits, maximum number of seats, hours of operation, outdoor patios, approval of the Minor Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator. He indicated that the appeal was filed by Council Member Mike Henn because of limited parking, adjacency to residential properties, high concentrations of licenses in the area and higher-than-average crime rates in the Page 1 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 area. Mr. Campbell reported that staff looked at the operational character and recommended approval. He added that the Planning Commission is not bound by the decision of the Zoning Administrator and that this is a de novo hearing. He addressed recommendations and stated that if desired, the Planning Commission could make modifications and approve the project. In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Mr. Campbell reported that prior to the present use, the property was Gallo's Deli and that he is not familiar with uses prior to that. He noted that it has been a food-service use since 1996. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Campbell addressed the required parking. He reported that the existing parking on-site is the required parking for this use per a determination made in 1996. Today, parking requirements would depend on the operational character given to this use and square footage and would be in the range of ten (10) to twenty (20) parking spaces. Based on seat counts, the parking ratio would be one (1) space for every three (3) seats. He stressed that at this point, they have the right to operate the restaurant with up to twenty(20)seats without providing additional parking. The issue at hand relates to the service of alcohol. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the existing use in terms of parking and the need for additional parking. He asked regarding restrictions relative to the distance between an alcohol-serving establishment and residential uses. Mr. Campbell reported there are no distance restrictions. Chair Tucker opened the Public Hearing. George Schroeder reported that the prior sandwich shop was fairly popular and commented on the service of beer and wine being an intensification of use as these cannot be served "to go". He added that under the previous use, people would park in a nearby parking lot but that since Sancho's has been operating, there are signs in the area indicating "No Sancho's parking". He reported that the existing Chipotle serves beer and wine, but only inside and not on the patio. He urged the Planning Commission to reject the application for the service of beer and wine at Sancho's. He distributed photographs of current violations at the establishment. Drew Whetherholt reported that in 1996,the Planning Commission denied alcohol service for this establishment because of the proximity to residential properties. He reported that the property used to be a single-family home, then a cookie shop and then a sandwich shop, prior to the present use. He reported that the sandwich shop had shorter hours of operation and complained of trash and noise generated from Sancho's. He expressed opposition to allowing alcohol service at the property and believed it would be an intensification of the use and in an area that already has a problem with alcohol. He added that beer and wine would only encourage customers to stay longer in the area and become louder. He commented on parking problems and on the number of alcohol licenses currently in the area as well as the amount of alcohol related crimes. Additionally, he reported that according to the Police Department, an ABC license would be denied because of the problems with their other establishment in the downtown area of Huntington Beach. He encouraged the Planning Commission to the application. OAW Ken Stoddard expressed opposition to the application to allow Sancho's to serve alcohol. He addressed the large number of ABC licenses in the district and felt that allowing alcohol service would further degrade the quality of life for residents as well as further burden the Police Department. He commented on the City allowing the Zoning Administrator to make these types of decisions and felt this important matter should not be decided by a single City employee but rather in an open forum at a Planning Commission meeting. He urged the Planning Commission to deny the application. Brent Barbata commented on complaints regarding noise and trash and noted that none of the complaints pertained to the service of alcohol, but rather are general objections to the restaurant, itself. In terms of parking, he noted that it does not relate to the service of alcohol as driving should not be encouraged of drinking customers. He added that the objections are critical of the restaurant and not specific to the desired ABC license. He commented on issues that are related to alcohol use and stated there is no evidence that the increase in alcohol use in the area creates more crime as crime rate in the district has dropped since 1990. He reported that people being arrested for disorderly conduct are coming from house parties or other events in existing venues. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the application noting that Sancho's has a right to operate their business as they please and have not broken any contracts, violated any promise or defrauded anyone. Page 2 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 Erin Dominick noted she is sensitive to the proximity to residential uses but agreed with the prior speaker in support of the ABC license for Sancho's. She commented on the proliferation of large bars in the area and reported that a small restaurant that closes at 9:00 p.m.would not have a large impact on crime. She added that if Chipotle can serve alcohol, then why would the City not allow same in and support a family-owned business. She reported that the owners have proven their success, that not everyone stays to eat, but take their food "to go" and that people will not go there specifically to drink. She stated that it will be in the best interest of the community to support local businesses. She reported that the signs prohibiting parking for Sancho's customers were there for the prior sandwich shop as well and the matter is not relevant to the argument. Matt Bridges stated he was surprised that the matter was appealed and addressed parking challenges throughout the City. He commented about the crime rate in the district and reported that the application has been reviewed by the Police Department and that they have no issues with it. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the application, especially since it pertains to a local, small business competing with existing large establishments. Donnie Lancaster, applicant, reported they do not allow smoking and addressed parking issues and noise and stated that there is no amplified music outside the restaurant. He addressed their trash enclosure and stated that they will abide by all conditions of approval. Additionally, he noted that he and his wife take a lot of pride in the area and keeping it clean. He commented that he will better control vendor deliveries and the operation and flexibility of their businesses. He stressed his desire to make his customers happy and be able to provide what they want. r In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Mr. Lancaster noted that it is a family business run by him and his wife and that his son takes care of ordering for both restaurants. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Lancaster reported they will not be offering keg beer and agreed to limit alcohol service to indoors only. He indicated that staff will be trained in terms of alcohol service. Seeing no other speakers; Chair Tucker closed the Public Hearing. Chair Tucker noted there is no Operators License due because of the hours of operation. In response to his inquiry, Mr. Campbell affirmed that the use permit would run with the land. Chair Tucker expressed concerns regarding the unknown quality of the next operator. He addressed the City's noise ordinance and reported that if a user violates same, Code Enforcement action will be taken. Parking issues are not before the Commission at this time nor is the issue of smoking. Commissioner Myers agreed with Chair Tucker's comments as well as with limiting the sale and consumption of alcohol to the inside of the restaurant. Commissioner Lawler agreed adding that complimentary businesses in the area already have this advantage and he does not see why this would not be granted to a family-owned business. Additionally, he agreed to prohibit keg beer and limit the consumption of alcohol to the inside of the restaurant. Chair Tucker suggested adding a finding that the Planning Commission would not approve extending the hours of operation. Discussion followed regarding the size of the required screen partition and the possibility of allowing alcohol on a trial basis and/or requiring a review after a specified amount of time. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Myers and carried (6 — 0) to adopt a draft resolution for approval to uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision and approve Modification Permit No. MD2013-023 with additional conditions regarding the prohibition of keg beer, limiting alcohol service to the inside of the restaurant only and requiring training of staff regarding alcohol service. Additionally, a finding should be added that the Planning Commission will not approve extending hours of operation if same would be requested. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker Page 3 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Kramer ITEM NO.3 A-FRAME SIGN REGULATIONS (PA2014-054) Site Location: City-wide Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford provided a PowerPoint presentation defining A-frame signs, providing example, a summary of the proposed regulations, and depicting how they may function in various commercial areas. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Mr. Alford reported on distinctions between where the private property ends and the public right-of-way begins. He added that if necessary, the City Surveyor may take appropriate measurements and make appropriate determinations relative to where the signs can be located. Commissioner Hillgren opined that it would be impractical as it relates to Code issues. Commissioner Koetting asked regarding businesses located on second floors and Mr. Alford reported that they would be permitted an A-frame sign if they have a common entrance on the ground floor. He added that it may become a matter to be addressed between landlords and their tenants. Chair Tucker expressed concerns with the possible rliferation of signs in the area and in public rights-of-way. Commissioner Hillgren commented on residents of Balboa Island request that A-frame signs not be permitted on Marine Avenue. VhL1 Chair Tucker noted that the right-of-way is heavily used on Balboa Island. Chair Tucker opened the Public Hearing. W. R. Dildine expressed concerns with the number of objects in the public right-of-way on Balboa. He stated that every property owner should know where their property line is and noted challenges with Code Enforcement being short-handed. Jim Mosher referenced written comments he submitted earlier today specifically regarding one section of the proposed code (Section 20.42.090(G)(7)(F) that seems to be "grammatically botched". He stated he offered three(3)suggested alternatives for increased clarity. Seeing no other speakers; Chair Tucker closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Lawler stated it seems like a good idea, but expressed sympathy with the public right-of-way issue. Chair Tucker noted that signs would be allowed in private property and not in the public right-of-way. He added that the concept is good, but the practicality is questionable. Commissioner Brown wondered if there is a way to require that before a business is allowed to place an A-frame sign they are aware of where the private property ends and the public right-of-way begins. Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski reported that the best way to address the issue is to require a sign permit for the A-frame sign. Commissioner Koetting agreed with requiring a sign permit to ensure that it will be of the proper design and appropriate location. Additionally, it would act as a tool for Code Enforcement. Commissioner Hillgren stated that A-frame signs, if done well, can make for an interesting walk down a sidewalk. He stated that over regulating them would be overkill. He expressed concerns with proliferation and suggested there should be one permitted, per address as a way to regulate the numbers. Page 4 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 Chair Tucker questioned whether landlords want to be in the business of regulating signs. Commissioner Hillgren commented on Code Enforcement and asked whether there could be a review provision within a specified time. Chair Tucker stated that would be done in a use permit context rather than through a code. Secretary Myers felt that the proliferation of signs in front of a multi-tenant building will create a problem and that requiring a landlord to regulate them will be difficult. He agreed that issuing permits for A-frame signs would be overkill but noted that it would be good to have guidelines. He stated he is not in favor of the matter. Chair Tucker suggested cleaning up some of the language and agreed with Mr. MossNer's comments regarding subsection 7F recommending that the section number be stated at the beginning of the section after "in compliance with". He suggested changes to subsection7E as "A-frame signs shall be designed so as to remain upright in a moderate wind". Deputy Community Development Wisneski clarified that the code language indicates that if the Planning Commission decides to not approve the amendment, the item dies at the Planning Commission level unless it is appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Hillgren confirmed that this is applicable to all commercial properties throughout the City and was requested by merchants in Corona del Mar. He asked whether there is merit in to limiting it to the Corona del Mar area. Mr. Alford confirmed that the amendment could be written to limit it to the Corona del Mar area. He added that currently, they are prohibited City-wide, including shopping centers, with the general exception for signs not visible from the public right-of-way. Discussion followed regarding restrictions in shopping centers and the need to comply with the center's sign restrictions. Commissioner Hillgren noted that he would limit the amendment to Corona del Mar rather than City-wide. He added that if the program is successful, it could be implemented City-wide. Chair Tucker commented against passing different regulations for different areas in the City. He suggested making no recommendation. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren to adopt a resolution recommending City Council adoption of Code Amendment No. CA2014-005 establishing A-Frame sign regulations in Corona del Mar and with the proposed language modifications. Substitute motion made by Commissioner Lawler to adopt a resolution recommending City Council adoption of Code Amendment No. CA2014-005 establishing A-Frame sign regulations with the proposed language modifications. The Substitute motion died for lack of a second. Discussion followed regarding existing regulations that apply to specific areas in the City such as parking in Balboa Island. Mr. Alford noted there are examples within the code that are limited to certain geographic areas. Commissioner Hillgren restated his original motion. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Lawler and carried (4 —2) to adopt a resolution recommending City Council adoption of Code Amendment No. CA2014-005 establishing A-Frame sign regulations in Corona del Mar and with the proposed language modifications discussed. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, and Myers NOES: Lawler and Tucker ABSTENTIONS: None Page 5 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 ABSENT: Kramer VII. STUDY SESSION ITEMS ITEM NO.4 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES CODE REVIEW (PA2014-083) Site Location: City-wide Chair Tucker noted this is a Study Session item meaning that no action will be taken by the Planning Commission at this time. Assistant Planner Ben Zdeba provided a presentation including background, a prior variance request related to the matter, denial by the Planning Commission and subsequent appeal to Council. He reported that it was heard by Council but the item was continued indefinitely and directed staff to review the Municipal Code relative to nonconforming structures, specifically smaller structures. He addressed the purpose of the nonconforming chapter; specific criteria referenced and details of options discussed by staff. He outlined next steps and offered to respond to questions. In response to Commissioner Myer's inquiry regarding staffs preferred option, Mr. Zdeba stated that staff would prefer Option Nos. 2 or 3 as stated in the report noting that Option No. 3 gives additional leeway by way of a discretionary review in the case where there is a nonconforming portion of the property that might encroach on one side making the structure nonconforming and allows for a case-by-case review of a property. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr.Zdeba addressed examples of nonconforming structures noting there are a variety of different development standards within the residential zoning district section of the code. He added that nonconforming structures and the scope of the discussion primarily involve setback encroachments and over height structures. 0'. Commissioner Hillgren reiterated the intent and purpose of the nonconforming section of the code and stated an interest in finding a way to help property owners who wish to bring nonconforming properties closer to conformance. Mr. Zdeba indicated the options identified would help to encourage the addition of conforming parking and also commented on the possibility of not supporting requests for increased offenses in terms of nonconformance. 10 Chair Tucker touched on the background of the item and noted there could be an inequity wherein a property owner with a larger structure built earlier on can add more square footage and develop the property further than a property owner with a smaller structure built earlier on with similar nonconforming conditions. He further expressed concern with implementing a discretionary procedure to allow an addition up to 75 percent stating that it could prevent the purpose of encouraging conformance. Commissioner Hillgren discussed adding garages to address situations where parking is the nonconforming issue and whether or not the new addition of parking would increase the total allowable addition with the 50 percent limitation. Mr. Zdeba noted that staff considered stipulating a specific maximum square footage that could be excluded from a garage depending on the number of parking spaces added. In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, he clarified Option No. 4 noting that it eliminates the discrimination between a smaller structure and larger structure, but that staff had concerns with this option because there are areas of the City that are regulated by lot coverage and others regulated by string-line policies. Chair Tucker opened public comments. W. R. Dildine reported that there are only two of these properties that are in trouble. One property, near him, has to abate its commercial use and another one that was demolished that complies with the current code. He added there is possibly one in the 800 block. He suggested that something could be done to ease the pain of the property owners in allowing them to redevelop their properties. Page 6 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 John Loomis, architect for the project that triggered this discussion, thanked staff and the Commission for reviewing this matter. He stated that the existing regulation penalizes smaller property owners and commented on Option No. 2 noting that in following same, the property would still be about 1,000 square feet below the average property in the block. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider either Option Nos. 3 or 4. He added that in his case, the nonconformity was created by a Zoning District change. He added that there are other people that could benefit from this change as well. Chair Tucker closed public comments. Chair Tucker stated he would like to see a more complete staff report that d its the options in order to be prepared to vote next time. Ms. Wisneski stated that staff will bring the matter back as a Public Hearing item with documents presenting options for the Planning Commission to consider. Chair Tucker agreed and commented on the possibility of generating other options in the process. Commissioner Hillgren stated he believes in merit-based approvals and encouraged finding ways in which properties can become more conforming. Ms. Wisneski reported that the matter will return to the Planning Commission at its second meeting in October and will be properly noticed. 140m,Air- Commissioner Koetting requested examples of cases that have and have not worked. Chair Tucker declared that the item will be heard by the Planning Commission atii s second meeting in October. ITEM NO. 5 BALBOA VILLAGE PARKING MANAGEMENT (PA2014-016) Site Location: Area west of Balboa Village between 7th Street and Adams Street Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski introduced the item noting that Balboa Village has been undergoing a revitalization effort in the last two (2) years and addressed the Citizens' Advisory Panel and the Balboa Village Advisory Committee. The committee generated the Balboa Village Master Plan which includes a component related to parking as well as revitalization for beautifying the area. She reported the attendance of some of the committee members and deferred to staff for a report. Principal Planner Campbell presented details of the Balboa Village Parking Management Plan addressing the on-going effort to revitalize the Village, adoption of the Balboa Village Master Plan, implementation strategies outlined in the staff report and considering parking in the Village, holistically. He described the creation of the Balboa Village Parking Management District, creation of a parking benefit district and a shared parking district, elimination of parking requirements for commercial businesses, results of a study by Nelson Nygaard and maintaining the existing parking resources and using them more effectively. He discussed the creation of a voluntary parking permit for employees, suspending in-lieu parking fees, modifying meter rates, the possibility of commercial validation and offering resident off-street parking discounts. In response to Chair Tucker's question, Mr. Campbell identified the items that are under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Chair Tucker noted that the Commission has a very narrow part of the policy decision that will be made. Mr. Campbell discussed the boundary of the proposed parking management district and reported that the biggest change would be to eliminate off-street parking requirements for all uses in that district with the exception of excursion services operating on the water and the marinas and would not change parking requirements for residential uses. Commissioner Hillgren commented positively on the concept of shared parking but noted that it typically requires cooperation and management. He asked regarding enforcement over the management area. Page 7 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 Mr. Campbell noted there are different ways of doing so and commented on engaging property owners to see if they would be willing to allow public use of some of their spaces. There may be cooperative agreements that could be entered into to allow public use of the spaces. He added that another part of shared parking would involve a business-to-business relationship that could be used during off-hours. Discussion followed regarding evaluation of parking spaces in the summer and winter times and Mr. Campbell stated that the available parking pool can support existing uses. Mr. Campbell added that care needs to be taken about diminishing existing parking. Ensuing discussion pertained to differentiating parking for excursion services and other uses in the Village. Ms. Wisneski reported that the intent is for long-term visitors to park in larger lots where rates will be less expensive than street lots and they will be permitted to park in overnight areas. Mr. Campbell provided examples where there would be a Minor or Conditional Use Permit for a change of use that would be subject to discretionary review and environmental review. Staff would look at whether it would be an appropriate use at the particular location. He added that parking wouldn't be a factor as there would be no required parking. Ms. Wisneski added that the Committee thought it very important for the programs to be monitored over time. The intent is to try the programs out and adjust them over time, if needed depending on the intensity of development that may occur. Chair Tucker addressed a comment made by Shelly Trainer who observed that when free parking with overnight permits are driven out of the residential areas, there will be some that will park free, overnight, for extended stays. He stated that would be something that needs to be considered. Commissioner Brown stated that he is unsure whether reducing the rate will encourage employees to pay and that they will still park where it is free. He felt that something comparable and free will need to be provided to discourage employees from parking in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Campbell addressed the Resident Parking Permit Program noting that it was resident-driven. He addressed location and existing challenges. He reported that residents have requested an overnight parking program and addressed the area involved, phasing and recommendations. He added that a daytime program is not something that the Coastal Commission would likely allow. He provided details of the program including guest passes for guests. The permit would not guarantee a space on the street but would allow residents the privilege to park on the street, overnight. He summarized that the idea is to get people who should not be parking in the residential area overnight to park in the commercial village. This would allow some parking spaces to be freed up for the benefit of the residents. Chair Tucker opened public comments. George Schroeder indicated he supports this effort and revitalizing downtown. He noted that different uses create different parking requirements and expressed concerns with the proposed residential permit parking program because of the early starting time. He added that there are residents throughout the area that want parking permits. Jim Stratton, Balboa Village Advisory Committee Member, stated he understands the concems of those who are opposed to the resident permit parking and noted that there is a unique situation west of the Village in that it is a free-parking area and residents from all over Newport Beach would like to park in free-parking areas. He reported that the area is about 700 parking spaces short of what is needed. In response to Chair Tucker's inquiry, Mr. Stratton commented on commercial intensification noting that it would create more parking demand and would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He reported that the majority of the commercial areas are non-conforming in that they do not have parking and have been grandfathered in. Only a small percentage was required to pay in-lieu fees and the Committee felt that was not fair since the majority of business were not required to do so. The amount of money generated was not enough to pay for the administration of in-lieu fees. He stated that the likelihood of substantial intensification is minimal. Page 8 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 Additionally, he commented on reports for which the City has paid a lot of money to study parking in the Village. All of them have recommended some type of permit parking or parking relief for residents west of the Village. Deanna Schnabel opined that parking requirements cannot be eliminated until the parking permit program is in place. She commented on the impacts to parking by the ExplorOcean expansion and on residents subsidizing businesses. She noted that the program is unique to the area in terms of beach parking lots and that parking has not been excluded but has been redirected to available public parking. She commented on areas that are underutilized and reiterated the parking permit program needs to precede the elimination of parking requirements. Howard Hall commented that spillover parking from Balboa Village does not impact the western portion of the resident parking permit program. He added that is why he proposed Medina Way as the boundary of the district but that he was ignored. He reported that residents were not asked whether they were affected by people parking from Balboa and expressed concerns with the early starting time of the parking permit program. Additionally, he commented on employee parking in the median noting that it does not affect residents of east Newport. Chair Tucker closed public comments. Staff was directed to schedule a Public Hearing for ber 4, 20 VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Wisneski noted that the Planning Commission approved the Amendment to the Port Theater Conditional Use Permit and that the item was called up by Council Member Gardner and is scheduled for the City Council meeting of September 9, 2014. Additionally, she addressed the Planning Commission tentative schedule and noted items to be discussed at upcoming meetings. She reported that the date of the Planning Commission October 9, 2014 meeting has been changed to October 2, 2014. Chair Tucker suggested the possibility of consolidating the September 4th and September 18th meetings, depending on the number of items to be addressed. Staff will look into the matter. 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Ms. Wisneski addressed items to be discussed at the next General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee meeting. She added that the Planning Commission will review this matter possibly in late fall. mo�, 2. Update on City Council Items ITEM NO. 8 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Chair Tucker commented on parking on Balboa Island and Ms. Wisneski reported that there is not the pool of parking available on the Island as there is in the Village. Chair Tucker stated he would like the matter brought before the Planning Commission at some point in the near future. Additionally, he requested a study session on the Balboa Marina West project in order for the Commission and public to understand the issues involved. ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Hillgren requested an excused absence for the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 2014. Page 9 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on August 14, 2014, at 7:45 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. Larry Tucker, Chair Jay Mye ecretary Page 10 of 10 Changes proposed by Chair Tucker Correspondence Item No . la Draft Minutes 08/21/14 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive September 4, 2014 Thursday, August 21, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Tucker III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker ABSENT: Kramer Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Michael Torres, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Patrick Alford, Planning Program Manager; Jim Campbell, Principal Planner; Ben Zdeba, Assistant Planner; and Marlene Burns, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Tucker 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 address the Planning Commission, Chair Tucker closed public comments. IV. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES- None V. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2014 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Tucker reported that he submitted changes to the minutes of August 11, 2014, as well as Mr. Jim Mosher. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Secretary Myers and carried (6 — 0) to approve the study session meeting minutes of August 11, 2014, as corrected. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Kramer VI. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 SANCHO'S TACOS MINOR USE PERMIT APPEAL (PA2014-058) Site Location: 3014 Balboa Boulevard Principal Planner Jim Campbell provided a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the location, surrounding properties, a description of the proposed project, existing conditions, existing permits, maximum number of seats, hours of operation, outdoor patios, approval of the Minor Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator. He indicated that the appeal was filed by Council Member Mike Henn because of limited parking, adjacency to residential properties, high concentrations of licenses in the area and higher-than-average crime rates in the Page 1 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 area. Mr. Campbell reported that staff looked at the operational character and recommended approval. He added that the Planning Commission is not bound by the decision of the Zoning Administrator and that this is a de novo hearing. He addressed recommendations and stated that if desired, the Planning Commission could make modifications and approve the project. In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Mr. Campbell reported that prior to the present use, the property was Gallo's Deli and that he is not familiar with uses prior to that. He noted that it has been a food-service use since 1996. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Campbell addressed the required parking. He reported that the existing parking on-site is the required parking for this use per a determination made in 1996. Today, parking requirements would depend on the operational character given to this use and square footage and would be in the range of ten (10) to twenty (20) parking spaces. Based on seat counts, the parking ratio would be one (1) space for every three (3) seats. He stressed that at this point, they have the right to operate the restaurant with up to twenty(20)seats without providing additional parking. The issue at hand relates to the service of alcohol. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the existing use in terms of parking and the need for additional parking. He asked regarding restrictions relative to the distance between an alcohol-serving establishment and residential uses. Mr. Campbell reported there are no distance restrictions. Chair Tucker opened the Public Hearing. Al George Schroeder reported that the prior sandwich shop was fairly popular and commented on the service of beer and wine being an intensification of use as these cannot be served "to go". He added that under the previous use, people would park in a nearby parking lot but that since Sancho's has been operating, there are signs in the area indicating "No Sancho's parking". He reported that the existing Chipotle serves beer and wine, but only inside and not on the patio. He urged the Planning Commission to reject the application for the service of beer and wine at Sancho's. He distributed photographs of current violations at the establishment. Drew Whetherholt-reported that in 1996,the Planning Commission denied alcohol service for this establishment because of the proximity to residential properties. He reported that the property used to be a single-family home, then a cookie shop and then a sandwich shop, prior to the present use. He reported that the sandwich shop had shorter hours of operation and complained of trash and noise generated from Sancho's. He expressed opposition to allowing alcohol service at the property and believed it would be an intensification of the use and in an area that already has a problem with alcohol. He added that beer and wine would only encourage customers to stay longer in the area and become louder. He commented on parking problems and on the number of alcohol licenses currently in the area as well as the amount of alcohol related crimes. Additionally, he reported that according to the Police Department, an ABC license would be denied because of the problems with their other establishment in the downtown area of Huntington Beach. He encouraged the Planning Commission to the application. OAW Ken Stoddard expressed opposition to the application to allow Sancho's to serve alcohol. He addressed the large number of ABC licenses in the district and felt that allowing alcohol service would further degrade the quality of life for residents as well as further burden the Police Department. He commented on the City allowing the Zoning Administrator to make these types of decisions and felt this important matter should not be decided by a single City employee but rather in an open forum at a Planning Commission meeting. He urged the Planning Commission to deny the application. Brent Barbata -commented on complaints regarding noise and trash and noted that none of the complaints pertained to the service of alcohol, but rather are general objections to the restaurant, itself. In terms of parking, he noted that it does not relate to the service of alcohol as driving should not be encouraged of drinking customers. He added that the objections are critical of the restaurant and not specific to the desired ABC license. He commented on issues that are related to alcohol use and stated there is no evidence that the increase in alcohol use in the area creates more crime as crime rate in the district has dropped since 1990. He reported that people being arrested for disorderly conduct are coming from house parties or other events in existing venues. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the application noting that Sancho's has a right to operate their business as they please and have not broken any contracts, violated any promise or defrauded anyone. Page 2 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 Erin Dominick -noted she is sensitive to the proximity to residential uses but agreed with the prior speaker in support of the ABC license for Sancho's. She commented on the proliferation of large bars in the area and reported that a small restaurant that closes at 9:00 p.m.would not have a large impact on crime. She added that if Chipotle can serve alcohol, then why would the City not allow same in and support a family-owned business. She reported that the owners have proven their success, that not everyone stays to eat, but take their food "to go" and that people will not go there specifically to drink. She stated that it will be in the best interest of the community to support local businesses. She reported that the signs prohibiting parking for Sancho's customers were there for the prior sandwich shop as well and the matter is not relevant to the argument. Matt Bridges stated he was surprised that the matter was appealed and addressed parking challenges throughout the City. He commented about the crime rate in the district and reported that the application has been reviewed by the Police Department and that they have no issues with it. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the application, especially since it pertains to a local, small business competing with existing large establishments. Donnie Lancaster, applicant, reported they do not allow smoking and addressed parking issues and noise and stated that there is no amplified music outside the restaurant. He addressed their trash enclosure and stated that they will abide by all conditions of approval. Additionally, he noted that he and his wife take a lot of pride in the area and keeping it clean. He commented that he will better control vendor deliveries and the operation and flexibility of their businesses. He stressed his desire to make his customers happy and be able to provide what they want. E� N In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Mr. Lancaster noted that it is a family business run by him and his wife and that his son takes care of ordering for both restaurants. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Lancaster reported they will not be offering keg beer and agreed to limit alcohol service to indoors only. He indicated that he would accept a condition that would require his staff to be trained in terms of alcohol service. Seeing no other speakers; Chair Tucker closed the Public Hearing. Chair Tucker noted there is no Operators License due because of the hours of operation. In response to his inquiry, Mr. Campbell affirmed that the use permit would run with the land. Chair Tucker expressed concerns regarding the unknown quality of the next operator. He addressed the City's noise ordinance and reported that if a user violates same, Code Enforcement action will be taken. Parking issues are not before the Commission at this time nor is the issue of smoking. Commissioner Myers agreed with Chair Tucker's comments as well as with limiting the sale and consumption of alcohol to the inside of the restaurant. Commissioner Lawler agreed adding that complimentary businesses in the area already have this advantage and he does not see why this would not be granted to a family-owned business. Additionally, he agreed to prohibit keg beer (so pitchers could not be served) and limit the consumption of alcohol to the inside of the restaurant. Chair Tucker suggested adding a finding that the Planning Commission would not approve extending the hours of operation. The Commissioners unanimously agreed if the proposal had included an extension of the hours of operation the Commission would not be in favor of the application. Discussion followed regarding the size of the required screen partition and the possibility of allowing alcohol on a trial basis and/or requiring a review after a specified amount of time. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Myers and carried (6 — 0) to adopt a draft resolution for approval to uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision and approve Modification Permit No. MD2013-023 with additional conditions regarding the prohibition of keg beer, limiting alcohol service to the inside of the restaurant only and requiring training of staff regarding alcohol service. Additionally, a Page 3 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 finding should be added that the Planning Commission wouldill not have approved the application if it had proposed extending the hours of operation .f sames^m^ ^^ id he ^^ ^s'^^'. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Kramer ITEM NO.3 A-FRAME SIGN REGULATIONS (PA2014-054) Site Location: City-wide Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford provided a PowerPoint presentation defining A-frame signs, providing example, a summary of the proposed regulations, and depicting how they may function in various commercial areas. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Mr. Alford reported on distinctions between where the private property ends and the public right-of-way begins. He added that if necessary, the City Surveyor may take appropriate measurements and make appropriate determinations relative to where the signs can be located. Commissioner Hillgren opined that it would be impractical as it relates to Code issues. Commissioner Koetting asked regarding businesselocated on second floors and Mr. Alford reported that they would be permitted an A-frame sign if they have a common entrance on the ground floor. Fie added that it may become a matter to be addressed between landlords and their tenants. Chair Tucker expressed concerns with the possible proliferation of signs in commercial areas and in public rights-of-way. Commissioner Hillgren commented on residents of Balboa Island request that A-frame signs not be permitted on Marine Avenue. Chair Tucker noted that the right-of-way is heavily used on Balboa Island. Chair Tucker opened the Public Hearing. W. R. Dildine expressed concerns with the number of objects in the public right-of-way on Balboa. He stated that every property owner should know where their property line is and noted challenges with Code Enforcement being short-handed. Jim Mosher referenced written comments he submitted earlier today specifically regarding one section of the proposed code (Section 20.42.090(G)(7)(F) that seems to be "grammatically botched". He stated he offered three(3)suggested alternatives for increased clarity. Seeing no other speakers; Chair Tucker closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Lawler stated it seems like a good idea, but expressed sympathy with the public right-of-way issue. IIm Chair Tucker noted that the proposal is for A-frame signs to onlvweuld be allowed ow private property and not in the public right-of-way. He added that the concept sounds fine s geed, but the practicality is questionable. Commissioner Brown wondered if there is a way to require that before a business is allowed to place an A-frame sign they are aware of where the private property ends and the public right-of-way begins. Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski reported that the best way to address the issue is to require a sign permit for the A-frame sign. Commissioner Koetting agreed with requiring a sign permit to ensure that it will be of the proper design and appropriate location. Additionally, it would act as a tool for Code Enforcement. Page 4 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 Commissioner Hillgren stated that A-frame signs, if done well, can make for an interesting walk down a sidewalk. He stated that over regulating them would be overkill. He expressed concerns with proliferation and suggested there should be one permitted, per address as a way to regulate the numbers. Chair Tucker questioned whether landlords want to be in the business of deciding which tenant of a multi-tenant building would be the one to get to have an A-frame sign, Commissioner Hillgren commented on Code Enforcement and asked whether there could be a review provision within a specified time. Chair Tucker stated that a review after a trial period would work + ^ina permit context but would not work well with a code amendmentml + Secretary Myers felt that the proliferation of signs in front of a multi-tenant building will create a problem and that requiring a landlord to regulate them will be difficult. He agreed that issuing permits for A-frame signs would be overkill but noted that it would be good to have guidelines. He stated he is not in favor of the matter. Chair Tucker suggested that since the matter would probably be going to the Council regardless (since they initiated the potential code amendment) that the Commission should clean up some of the language and agreed with Mr. Mosher's comments regarding subsection 7F recommending that the section number be stated at the beginning of the section after"in compliance with". He suggested changes to subsection7E as "A-frame signs shall be designed so as to remain upright in a moderate wind". Deputy Community Development Wisneski clarified that the code language indicates that if the Planning Commission decides to not approve the amendment, the item dies at the Plannip Commission level unless it is appealed to the City Council Commissioner Hillgren confirmed that this is applicable to all commercial properties throughout the City and was requested by merchants in Corona del Mar. He asked whether there is merit in to limiting it to the Corona del Mar area. Mr. Alford confirmed that the amendment could be written to limit it to the Corona del Mar area. He added that currently, they are prohibited City-wide, including shopping centers, with the general exception for signs not visible from the public right-of-way. Discussion followed regarding restrictions in shopping centers and the need to comply with the center's sign restrictions. Commissioner Hillgren noted that he would limit the amendment to Corona del Mar rather than City-wide. He added that if the program is successful, it could be implemented City-wide. Chair Tucker argued against passing GI4PFPR^t regulations that only applied to ones^• �'�o.#cF^^ areas in the City. He suggested making no recommendation rather than confine the change to lust one area of town. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren to adopt a resolution recommending City Council adoption of Code Amendment No. CA2014-005 establishing A-Frame sign regulations in Corona del Mar and with the proposed language modifications. Substitute motion made by Commissioner Lawler to adopt a resolution recommending City Council adoption of Code Amendment No. CA2014-005 establishing A-Frame sign regulations with the proposed language modifications. The Substitute motion died for lack of a second. Discussion followed regarding existing regulations that apply to specific areas in the City such as parking in Balboa Island. Mr. Alford noted there are examples within the code that are limited to certain geographic areas. Chair Tucker did not see that as a comparable example. Commissioner Hillgren restated his original motion. Page 5 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner [wasn't Ray as he voted against the motion _awle and carried (4 — 2) to adopt a resolution recommending City Council adoption of Code Amendment No. CA2014-005 establishing A-Frame sign regulations in Corona del Mar and with the proposed language modifications discussed. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting,and Myers NOES: Lawler and Tucker ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Kramer VII. STUDY SESSION ITEMS ITEM NO. 4 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES CODE REVIEW (PA2014-083) Site Location: City-wide Chair Tucker noted this is a Study Session item meaning that no action will bythe Planning Commission at this time. Assistant Planner Ben Zdeba provided a presentation including background, a prior variance request related to the matter, denial by the Planning Commission and subsequent appeal to Council. He reported that it was heard by Council but the item was continued indefinitely and directed staff to review the Municipal Code relative to nonconforming structures, specifically smaller structures. He addressed the purpose of the nonconforming chapter; specific criteria referenced and details of options discussed by staff. He outlined next steps and offered to respond to questions. In response to Commissioner Myer's inquiry regarding staffs preferred option, Mr. Zdeba stated that staff would prefer Option Nos. 2 or 3 as stated in the report noting that Option No. 3 gives additional leeway by way of a discretionary review in the case where there is a nonconforming portion of the property that might encroach on one side making the structure nonconforming and allows for a case-by-case review of a property. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr.Zdeba addressed examples of nonconforming structures noting there are a variety of different development standards within the residential zoning district section of the code. He added that nonconforming structures and the scope of the discussion primarily involve setback encroachments and over height structures. Commissioner Hillgren reiterated the intent and purpose of the nonconforming section of the code and stated an interest in finding a way to help property owners who wish to bring nonconforming properties closer to conformance. Mr. Zdeba indicated the options identified would help to encourage the addition of conforming parking and also commented on the possibility of not supporting requests for increased offenses in terms of nonconformance. Chair Tucker touched on the background of the item and noted there could be an inequity wherein a property owner with a larger structure built earlier on can add more square footage and develop the property further than a property owner with a smaller structure built earlier on with similar nonconforming conditions. But Hhe further expressed concern with implementing a discretionary procedure to allow an addition up to 75 percent stating that it could prevent the purpose of encouraging conformance. Commissioner Hillgren discussed adding garages to address situations where parking is the nonconforming issue and whether or not the new addition of parking would increase the total allowable addition with the 50 percent limitation. Mr. Zdeba noted that staff considered stipulating a specific maximum square footage that could be excluded from a garage depending on the number of parking spaces added. In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, he clarified Option No. 4 noting that it eliminates the discrimination between a smaller structure and larger structure, but that staff had concerns with this option because there are areas of the City that are regulated by lot coverage and others regulated by string-line policies. Page 6 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 Chair Tucker opened public comments. W. R. Dildine reported that there are only two of these properties that are in trouble. One property, near him, has to abate its commercial use and another one that was demolished that complies with the current code. He added there is possibly one in the 800 block. He suggested that something could be done to ease the pain of the property owners in allowing them to redevelop their properties. John Loomis, architect for the project that triggered this discussion, thanked staff and the Commission for reviewing this matter. He stated that the existing regulation penalizes smaller property owners and commented on Option No. 2 noting that in following same, the property would still be about 1,000 square feet below the average property in the block. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider either Option Nos. 3 or 4. He added that in his case, the nonconformity was created by a Zoning District change. He added that there are other people that could benefit from this change as well. Chair Tucker closed public comments. 40:( Chair Tucker stated he would like to see a more complete staff report th\detailstionsorder to be prepared to vote next time. Ms. Wisneski stated that staff will bring the matter back as a Public Hearpresenting options for the Planning Commission to consider. Chair Tucker agreed and commented on the possibility of staff generating other options in the process of writing the staff report. Commissioner Hillgren stated he believes in merit-based approvals and encouraged finding ways in which properties can become more conforming. Ms. Wisneski reported that the matter will return to the Planning Commission at its second meeting in October and will be properly noticed. Commissioner Koetting requested examples of cases that have and have not worked. Chair Tucker declared that the item will be heard by the Planning Commission at its second meeting in October. ITEM NO. 5 BALBOA VILLAGE PARKING MANAGEMENT (PA2014-016) Site Location: Area west of Balboa Village between 7th Street and Adams Street Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski introduced the item noting that Balboa Village has been undergoing a revitalization effort in the last two (2) years and addressed the Citizens' Advisory Panel and the Balboa Village Advisory Committee. The committee generated the Balboa Village Master Plan which includes a component related to parking as well as revitalization for beautifying the area. She reported the attendance of some of the committee members and deferred to staff for a report. Principal Planner Campbell presented details of the Balboa Village Parking Management Plan addressing the on-going effort to revitalize the Village, adoption of the Balboa Village Master Plan, implementation strategies outlined in the staff report and considering parking in the Village, holistically. He described the creation of the Balboa Village Parking Management District, creation of a parking benefit district and a shared parking district, elimination of parking requirements for commercial businesses, results of a study by Nelson Nygaard and maintaining the existing parking resources and using them more effectively. He discussed the creation of a voluntary parking permit for employees, suspending in-lieu parking fees, modifying meter rates, the possibility of commercial validation and offering resident off-street parking discounts. In response to Chair Tucker's question, Mr. Campbell identified the items that are under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Chair Tucker noted that the Commission has a very narrow part of the policy decision that will be made. Page 7 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 Mr. Campbell discussed the boundary of the proposed parking management district and reported that the biggest change would be to eliminate off-street parking requirements for all uses in that district with the exception of excursion services operating on the water and the marinas and would not change parking requirements for residential uses. Commissioner Hillgren commented positively on the concept of shared parking but noted that it typically requires cooperation and management. He asked regarding enforcement over the management area. Mr. Campbell noted there are different ways of doing so and commented on engaging property owners to see if they would be willing to allow public use of some of their spaces. There may be cooperative agreements that could be entered into to allow public use of the spaces. He added that another part of shared parking would involve a business-to-business relationship that could be used during off-hours. Discussion followed regarding evaluation of parking spaces in the summer and winter times and Mr. Campbell stated that the available parking pool can support existing uses. Mr. Campbell added that care needs to be taken about diminishing existing parking. Ensuing discussion pertained to differentiating parking for excursion services and other uses in the Village. Ms. Wisneski reported that the intent is for long-term visitors to park in larger lots where rates will be less expensive than street lots and they will be permitted to park in overnight areas. Mr. Campbell provided examples where there would be a Minor or Conditional Use Permit for a change of use that would be subject to discretionary review and environmental review. Staff would look at whether it would be an appropriate use at the particular location. He added that parking wouldn't be a factor as there would be no required parking. Ms. Wisneski added that the Committee thought it very important for the programs to be monitored over time. The intent is to try the programs out and adjust them over time, if needed depending on the intensity of development that may occur. Chair Tucker addressed a comment made in a ail from Shelly Trainer who observed that when free parking is replaced with overnight permits— non-residents driven out of the residential areas ' erewill be-,erme hal will park free, overnight, for extended stays on Balboa Island. He stated that would be something that needs to be considered. V Commissioner Brown stated that he is unsure whether reducing the rate will encourage employees to pay and that they will still park where it is free. He felt that something comparable and free will need to be provided to discourage employees from parking in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Campbell addressed the Resident Parking Permit Program noting that it was resident-driven. He addressed location and existing challenges. He reported that residents have requested an overnight parking program and addressed the area involved, phasing and recommendations. He added that a daytime program is not something that the Coastal Commission would likely allow. He provided details of the program including guest passes for guests. The permit would not guarantee a space on the street but would allow residents the privilege to park on the street, overnight. He summarized that the idea is to get people who should not be parking in the residential area overnight to park in the commercial village. This would allow some parking spaces to be freed up for the benefit of the residents. Chair Tucker opened public comments. George Schroeder indicated he supports this effort and revitalizing downtown. He noted that different uses create different parking requirements and expressed concerns with the proposed residential permit parking program because of the early starting time. He added that there are residents throughout the area that want parking permits. Jim Stratton, Balboa Village Advisory Committee Member, stated he understands the concerns of those who are opposed to the resident permit parking and noted that there is a unique situation west of the Village in that it is a Page 8 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 free-parking area and residents from all over Newport Beach would like to park in free-parking areas. He reported that the area is about 700 parking spaces short of what is needed. In response to Chair Tucker's inquiry, Mr. Stratton commented on commercial intensification noting that it would create more parking demand and would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He reported that the majority of the commercial areas are non-conforming in that they do not have parking and have been grandfathered in. Only a small percentage was required to pay in-lieu fees and the Committee felt that was not fair since the majority of business were not required to do so. The amount of money generated was not enough to pay for the administration of in-lieu fees. He stated that the likelihood of substantial intensification is minimal. Additionally, he commented on reports for which the City has paid a lot of money to study parking in the Village. All of them have recommended some type of permit parking or parking relief for residents west of the Village. Deanna Schnabel opined that parking requirements cannot be eliminated until the parking permit program is in place. She commented on the impacts to parking by the ExplorOcean expansion and on residents subsidizing businesses. She noted that the program is unique to the area in terms of beach parking lots and that parking has not been excluded but has been redirected to available public parking. She commented on areas that are underutilized and reiterated the parking permit program needs to precede the elimination of parking requirements. Howard Hall commented that spillover parking from Balboa Village does not impact the western portion of the resident parking permit program. He added that is why he proposed Medina Way as the boundary of the district but that he was ignored. He reported that residents were not asked whether they were affected by people parking from Balboa and expressed concerns with the early starting time of the parking permit program. Additionally, he commented on employee parking in the median noting that it does not affect residents of east Newport. Chair Tucker closed public comments. He noted when the matter comes back to the Commission, the Commission will only consider the narrow portion of the parking management proposal that the Commission has the authority to vote on, but that the study session was helpful for the Commission to understand the entirety of the Balboa Village parking debate. Staff was directed to schedule a Public Hearing for September 4, 2014. VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Wisneski noted that the Planning Commission approved the Amendment to the Port Theater Conditional Use Permit and that the item was called up by Council Member Gardner and is scheduled for the City Council meeting of September 9, 2014. Additionally, she addressed the Planning Commission tentative schedule and noted items to be discussed at upcoming meetings. She reported that the date of the Planning Commission October 9, 2014 meeting has been changed to October 2, 2014. Chair Tucker suggested the possibility of consolidating the September 4th and September 18th meetings, depending on the number of items to be addressed. Staff will look into the matter. 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Ms. Wisneski addressed items to be discussed at the next General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee meeting. She added that the Planning Commission will review this matter possibly in late fall. 2. Update on City Council Items Page 9 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 ITEM NO. 8 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Chair Tucker commented on parking on Balboa Island and Ms. Wisneski reported that there is not the pool of parking available on the Island as there is in the Village. Chair Tucker stated he would like the matter brought before the Planning Commission at some point in the near future. Additionally, he requested a study session on the Balboa Marina West project in order to ensure the Commission and public understand the issues involved before having to vote on the matter. ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Hillgren requested an excused absence for the Planning.Commission meeting of September 18, 2014. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Page 10 of 10 Correspondence Item No . lb Draft Minutes 08/21/14 September 4, 2014 September 4, 2014, Planning Commission Agenda Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1: MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2014 Changes to the draft minutes passages shown in italics are suggested in Orikeeut underline format. 1. Page 1, last paragraph: "Principal Planner Jim Campbell provided a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the location, surrounding properties, a description of the proposed project, existing conditions, existing permits, maximum number of seats, hours of operation, outdoor patios, and approval of the Minor Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator." 2. Page 2, sentence 3 from end: "He commented on issues that are related to alcohol use and stated there is no evidence that the increase in alcohol use in the area creates more crime as the crime rate in the district has dropped since 1990." 3. Page 3, paragraph 4 from end: "Commissioner Lawler agreed adding that eemplimentary complementary businesses in the area already have this advantage and he does not see why this would not be granted to a family-owned business." [shouldn't this be "similar'or "comparable" businesses, rather than "complementary'?] 4. Page 4, Item 3, paragraph 1: "Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford provided a PowerPoint presentation defining A-frame signs, providing e*ample examples, a summary of the proposed regulations, and depicting how they may function in various commercial areas." 5. Page 4, Item 3, paragraph 5: "CommissionerHillgren commented on residents of Balboa Island request reauestinp that A-frame signs not be permitted on Marine Avenue." 6. Page 5, paragraph 6: "Deputy Community Development Wisneski clarified that the code amendment language indicates that if the Planning Commission decides to not approve the amendment, the item dies at the Planning Commission level unless it is appealed to the City Council." 7. Page 5, paragraph 7: "He asked whether there is merit in to limiting it to the Corona del Mar area." 8. Page 7, Item 5, paragraph 1: "The ^^vo,,,mitt'�e panel generated the Balboa Village Master Plan which includes a component related to parking as well as revitalization for beautifying the area." [? my recollection is the committee was created to oversee and implement the Master Plan created by the panel and subsequently approved by the City Council] 9. Page 7, Item 5, paragraph 2: "... results of a study by Nelson Nygaar NelsonlNypaard 10. Page 8, paragraph 6: "... Shelly Trainer Trainor ..." [Chair Tucker has suggested other changes to this paragraph. The spelling shown here is the one in the email being referenced.]