Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/2018 - Planning CommissionNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS —100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 REGULAR MEETING — 6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chair Zak III. ROLL CALL IV. V. VI. M111 PRESENT: Chair Peter Zak (departed at 9:10 p.m.), Vice Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Kory Kramer (arrived at 8:00 p.m.), Commissioner Lee Lowrey ABSENT: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Associate Planner Benjamin Zdeba, Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan, Administrative Support Specialist Tiffany Lippman, Administrative Analyst Brittany Ramirez PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher remarked that the Zoning Administrator and City staff have interpreted the Local Coastal Program (LCP) as authorizing the City of Newport Beach to move property lines within the coastal zone without benefit of a coastal development permit. A brochure published by the Coastal Commission indicates the altering of property lines requires a coastal development permit. The Coastal Commission and California courts have ruled that interpretations like the City's are incorrect. The Planning Commission can request a review, hear arguments, and determine whether the interpretation is valid. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2018 Recommended Action: 1. Approve and file Motion made by Chair Zak and seconded by Vice Chair Weigand to approve the draft minutes of the August 9, 2018, meeting with edits provided by Jim Mosher. AYES: Zak, Weigand, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: Dunlap ABSENT: Kramer STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING (PA2015-210) Site Location: 101 Bayview Place Summary: The applicant seeks approval of a major site development review and conditional use permit for the construction and operation of a three-story, approximately 85,000 -square -foot building with 101 convalescent and congregate care units with a total of 120 beds. The building would include, resident 1 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 9/13/2018 dining areas, fitness room, spa/salon, theater, library, medication rooms, and support uses such as offices, lab, mail room, laundry, housekeeping, and subsurface parking. The existing single -story restaurant and associated improvements on the 1.5 -acre site would be removed. The application includes a request to amend the General Plan to increase the development limit from 70,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet and to change the land use category from CO -G (General Commercial Office) to PI (Private Institutions). The application also includes a planned community development plan amendment to allow institutional uses subject to the approval of a use permit. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for the project and was made available for public review August 10, 2018. Comments on the DEIR will be accepted until September 28, 2018. The document is available at the Planning Division, all City libraries and may also be accessed online at the City's website, specifically at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1347. The purpose of the Study Session is to provide the Planning Commission and the public the opportunity to review and discuss the proposed project in advance of the public hearings. Recommended Action: No action on either the project or draft EIR can be taken by the Planning Commission at the study session. Associate Planner Benjamin Zdeba reported the project is located south of the 73 freeway and John Wayne Airport. The 1.5 -acre site is currently developed with a restaurant, which will be demolished as part of the project. The project is a senior assisted living/memory care facility with 121 beds. It would have shared open space and amenities. The overall square footage would be approximately 85,000 square feet. The design complies with the height limitation and proposes parking that exceeds the minimum required amount. The Baycrest Court Condominiums are located to the south of the project, single-family detached homes to the west, office buildings to the immediate west and the east, and the Bristol Street right-of-way to the north. The project requires a General Plan amendment, which would change the land use allowances from Commercial Office -General (CO -G) to Private institutions (PI) and increase the development limitation to 85,000. The anomaly table allows a 70,000 - square -foot office or an 8,000 -square -foot restaurant. The property is within the Bayview Planned Community (PC -32) Zoning District, which would need an amendment to allow the specific land use of a residential care facility for the elderly. The facility would be subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Site development review is required to ensure a larger development complies with all required development standards contained in the PC text and the Zoning Code. A conditional use permit would allow the operation of a residential care facility for the elderly and would contain conditions of approval regarding the operation and license type. The Planning Commission held a previous study session in February 2017. The original application, submitted almost three years ago, proposed a five -story building containing 110,000 square feet. With staff and community feedback, the applicant has redesigned the project. The community has expressed concern regarding residents potentially wandering from the facility. Kathleen Brady with Psomas, the City's environmental consultant, advised that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses 13 topical areas. A number of areas identify mitigation measures and regulatory requirements. With the application of mitigation measures, all impacts are reduced to less than significant. In response to Commissioner Koetting's question, Ms. Brady explained that public service has a cumulative impact pertaining to fire services. Public service was not identified as a project -direct impact. As development intensifies, there will be no need for new fire facilities, but there will be a need for ambulance, transport, and life support capabilities for Fire Station Number 7. A mitigation measure pertains to payment of fees to compensate for that. Associate Planner Zdeba advised that the public comment period for the EIR concludes September 28, 2018. Comments may be submitted via email, the United States Postal Service, or hand delivery. Once the comment period closes, Psomas will prepare responses to all comments, and a public hearing will be held for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation. Because the project is located in the area of the airport, approval by the Airport Land Use Commission is required. Staff anticipates presenting the EIR to the City Council in early 2019. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's query, Associate Planner Zdeba indicated the City Council has to issue a statement of overriding considerations for the Airport Land Use Commission if the project is determined not to be compatible with the airport land use plan. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell added that the 2of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 9/13/2018 Airport Land Use Commission does not review projects in a draft stage. Once (if) the Planning Commission recommends approval of a project, then the Airport Land Use Commission has a project to review. Carol McDermott, with Entitlement Advisors and MIG, the applicant's consultant, reiterated that the first Planning Commission study session was held in February 2017. The public objected to the height and size of the building, and the City required preparation of an EIR. The applicant reduced the size of the building from five stories to three stories and from 109,000 square feet to 84,000 square feet and the number of care units from 128 to 101. The draft EIR has been circulated for public review and comment. She stated that she had attempted to schedule a meeting with the Baycrest Homeowners Association (HOA), but the HOA did not honor the request. The EIR found that the project causes no substantial impacts. The community seems to believe the technical research document did not find all impacts. The number of adult children deciding where their parents will reside is growing. The number of residents who are aged 75 years and older, and, who reside in the Newport Beach area is expected to reach 8,453 by 2020. No full-service assisted living/memory care communities have been built in Newport Beach for almost 20 years. Vintage Newport Beach, built in 1962, was built without private restrooms and in a much different environment for the care of the elderly. The facility is undergoing renovations to provide current amenities and improved room configurations. Newport Beach Plaza was built in 1990 with 101 beds. Crown Cove was built in 1999 with 61 rooms. Newport Beach Memory Care has 42 rooms for memory care only. The number of available rooms and the anticipated need for rooms substantiate the need for a new facility. The building is sited as far away from residential uses as possible with 90 feet between. Landscaping, carports and garages, and a driveway are located between the building and residential uses. Of the 101 units, 81 will be dedicated to assisted living and 20 to memory care. The primary access to the facility is from Bayview Place. The consultant is working with staff to address community concerns regarding the General Plan amendment and zoning. She would reduce the extent of the amendment to allow only assisted living, limit the permitted use to residential care for the elderly, and ensure the compatibility of the project with adjoining development. The draft EIR shows a substantial reduction in traffic from the existing restaurant use. The project includes a generous turnaround, landscape setbacks, a mature planting plan, and underground parking. Parking, a theater, a fitness room and spa, and maintenance and mechanical equipment will be located in the basement. Memory care, assisted living, the main lobby, the courtyard, and a library will be located on the first floor. Assisted living rooms will be located on the third and fourth floors. Emergency access will be via Bristol. The memory care units will be secured and monitored 24/7, and its staff will be trained for the specifics of the population. Recreational facilities for memory care residents will be enclosed within the building and secured. Anyone wanting to access the memory care unit has to utilize a confidential key pad to move in and out of the secured area. Alarmed access doors will be locked and operate on a short delay so that staff can intervene. All exterior windows will include window stops to prevent escape. The operator finds that unintentional and unaccompanied exits by residents are extremely rare. With improved and increased security provisions, unintentional and unaccompanied exists are almost nonexistent. Because parking is underground, noise will not be an issue. The Fire Department's process and procedures limit the use of sirens at intersections where the vehicle is traveling against the signal. Sirens are not used for vehicles entering a residential neighborhood. Amenities will be located within internal courtyards so that activities do not disrupt the adjoining community. The facility is not permitted for unauthorized drainage into the Back Bay. The State has significant requirements for disposal of medical waste. The project will not cause an increase in traffic; therefore, there will not be an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. The facility will have a residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFE) license, which will allow only the use requested at the location. The applicant has requested a conditional use permit (CUP) for the RCFE. Because the project has no significant impacts, there will be no impacts to land values. Zoning that allows an RCFE use also allows numerous uses that would have greater impacts. The draft EIR shows that an office building would result in greater impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation traffic than the project. The applicant wants to mirror and enhance the landscaping used at Baycrest in an effort to provide the appropriate screening of the facility. A shade/shadow analysis for the three- story building found almost no impacts from shade/shadow. The project will have no peak hour traffic implications when residents of adjoining areas are traveling to and from work and when office workers are traveling into or from office buildings located across the street from the project site. The applicant is offering a voluntary development agreement that would provide additional community benefits. General Plan Housing Element Policy H5.1 ensures that senior housing needs are met by encouraging approval of senior housing. In answer to Chair Zak's request, Ms. McDermott stated she presented information to the Baycrest HOA Board and residents soon after the Planning Commission's previous study session. After redesigning the project, she twice requested meetings with the Baycrest HOA Board and/or its community and received no response. She sent a mailing to residents in the Baycrest and Santa Ana Heights community, offering to meet and provide more information and exhibits. She copied the president of the HOA Board on every step of the process and notified 3of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 9/13/2018 him of the EIR and the August study session. The president of the HOA Board provided only his personal objections. In reply to Commissioners' queries, Associate Planner Zdeba explained that the Zoning Code requires one parking space for every three beds for this type of use. The project proposes 120 beds; therefore, 40 parking spaces are required. The applicant's claim of providing surplus parking appears to be based on the belief that most of the residents will not drive cars. Parking is targeted to employees and visitors. Ms. McDermott reported staffing will range from 20 to 30 people at any one time. There may be as many as 30 employees on the premises at any one time as employees transition from one shift to another. Associate Planner Zdeba clarified that the Code requirement of one parking space per three beds is a blended rate that includes visitors and employees. The applicant is providing surplus parking based on its projected needs. Ms. McDermott added that valet parking will be provided for overflow parking at special events. The square footage of the interior open area is a bit smaller than originally proposed because the number of units is less than originally proposed. The State has requirements for minimum square footage of the interior open areas. Associate Planner Zdeba advised that on -street parking is not allowed on either Bayview Place or Bristol. Ms. McDermott reported the reduction of the facility from five stories to three stores was a direct result of comments received from HOA residents. The applicant is willing to work out ambulance access to the facility and would accept a condition whereby ambulances would enter via the roundabout and exit onto Bristol. Chair Zak opened the public hearing. Marshall Hugo, 55 Baycrest Court, wanted to know if any of the Commissioners are aware of the amount of traffic on Bristol, Jamboree, and Baycrest. The facility's impact on traffic cannot be zero. He did not believe the applicant performed a traffic analysis. Dave O'Keefe, 20082 Bayview Avenue, supported the project because of the need for such a facility in the community. Rhonda Watkins, 58 Baycrest Court, stated the project is incompatible with a zoning change from CO -G to PI. A CO -G use is perfect for the site. The facility will not provide the most beneficial environment for residents needing memory care. William Blakeney felt Ms. McDermott's presentation did not mention any positive benefits for the neighborhood. He opposed the project based on its use of high volumes of water. According to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) studies, hospitals and senior centers utilize up to 315 gallons of water per bed per day. Lyle Brakob, 6 Baycrest Court, opposed the project because of its location near John Wayne Airport, which generates noise and air pollution. Mike Smith, Bayview Avenue, opposed a change in zoning for the project. More studies of traffic are needed. Residents are concerned about future uses of the site should the senior facility cease to operate on the site. He requested more information be provided to residents of Bayview and Santa Ana Heights. Andrea Kane, Bayview Heights, opposed the project because of its impacts to traffic, overflow parking into the neighborhood, and future use of the site. A number of residents could not be present because the meeting occurred at the same time as back to school night. Dale Ransom, 62 Cormorant Circle, reported many Bayview Terrace residents opposed the project due to the potential for decreased property values and increased traffic. Chris Webb, 20291 Bayview Avenue, did not recall receiving any information about the project. He expressed concerns regarding traffic, the amount of open space at the proposed project, and future uses on the site. Patti Lampman, 140 Baycrest Court, indicated the Baycrest community opposes the project mainly because of the applicant's request for a zoning change. The public should be allowed to vote for or against a zoning change. Karen Santaniello supported the project because senior care facilities are needed in the community. The facility is appealing. 4of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 9/13/2018 Ann Janes supported the project, its location, and its ability to meet a need in the community. Dave Tax believed the design of the facility will be beautiful. Modern technology and a dedicated staff will ensure the facility's high quality. The facility will be one of the quietest uses on the block. The senior care facility will offer the least impact of John Wayne Airport, the 73 freeway, the hotel, and the Mercedes dealership. Commissioner Kramer arrived at approximately 8:00 p.m. Aaron Rios, 52 Cormorant Circle, opposed the applicant's request to rezone the property. Traffic impacts are also a concern. Michael McDonald, 114 Baycrest Court, agreed that tall trees would block views of the building, but they would also block sunlight. If the applicant had selected a site zoned for a senior care facility, it could have built and staffed two facilities in the time the current application has been pending. One homeowner sold his home because he did not want to hear the noise of constructing the facility. Charlotte Miller, 122 Baycrest Court, commented on residents' expectations for the City to protect their property values and physical safety. An institution is open all night with employee shift changes, ambulances, police activity, and mortuary and coroner vehicles. Baycrest Court and Terrace residents will suffer the most impacts from the facility. Chris Larkins, 20232 Spruce Avenue, opposed the project. Scott Hyde, 20112 Spruce Avenue, questioned the applicant's claim that sirens would not impact residents and whether facility residents would have escorts outside the building. Donna McMeikan, 20422 Bayview Avenue, opposed the project for the reasons stated in her email to the Planning Commission. Stephen Wulfestieg, 20441 Bayview Avenue, expressed concerns about traffic impacts, parking for the facility, the size of the facility, and impacts on Fire Station Number 7. Peter Dugan, 20282 Bayview Avenue, opposed rezoning the site because neighboring office buildings could request zone changes in the future. Doug Pancake, project architect, remarked that Paul Habeeb and Milestone are a quality developer and quality operator. Based on his experience, senior facilities essentially close at 8:00 p.m. The project will provide good amenities and quality of care and is a good transitional use between a freeway and residences. The majority of senior facilities do not receive many visitors. None of the senior residents will drive. Patricia Blakeney opposed the project's location on the corner. Residents do not want the zoning changed. Chair Zak closed the public hearing. In answer to Commissioners' questions, Ms. McDermott explained that shift changes will occur at 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. Approximately 20 staff will be onsite during the day shift, 10 during the night shift, and 30 during the transition of shifts. Associate Planner Zdeba clarified that the zoning of the property is different from the General Plan land use designation. The land use designation for the site would change to PI, which is intended for private uses that serve the public. The zoning designation implements the land use designation. The applicant is exploring a PC text amendment, which is the zoning for the property, to allow only a residential care facility for the elderly, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The Bayview PC document presently contains uses that may not require use permits. A nightclub is permitted on the site by right. Another restaurant, an animal clinic/animal hospital, or a business office could be allowed at the site. General Plan Land Use Element Anomaly 22 is specific to the site and limits the site to 8,000 square feet of restaurant or 70,000 square feet of office. The current General Plan development limit would allow a 70,000 -square -foot office building. The height limit would restrict the number of stores to two or three with subterranean parking. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine stated residents can leave the neighborhood by turning right, traveling along Bayview to the signal at Jamboree, and then turning left. Associate Planner Zdeba reported the original building footprint was similar to the current footprint. The setback 5of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 9/13/2018 for Bayview Place is approximately 15 feet, which complies with the standard. Ms. McDermott advised that memory care facilities have minor capacity available, and assisted living facilities have almost no capacity available. The number of beds is determined by a combination of the level of care provided and demand. Other facilities in the community have a similar number of beds. RCFE licenses are issued by the California Department of Social Services. Associate Planner Zdeba advised that a 70,000 -square -foot building would require a conditional use permit, which the Planning Commission would need to approve. The Planning Commission would have to approve a site development review to ensure a project complies with landscape, height, and setback requirements. A zoning change would not be required for a 70,000 -square -foot building. The Zoning Code excludes square footage attributed to a parking structure, which is located on the same site as the use it serves, from the floor area. The proposed 85,000 -square -foot facility does not include the square footage for parking. The same would apply to a 70,000 -square -foot office building. Chair Zak requested the applicant and/or staff provide information regarding construction noise and associated mitigation measures, consider more open space within the facility, routing for emergency vehicles, and a comparison of traffic generated by the existing restaurant to traffic expected to be generated by the facility. Associate Planner Zdeba reported a tentative date of December 6 has been scheduled for a public hearing regarding the project. The draft EIR is available on the City's website. Comments regarding the project may be submitted after the expiration of the formal draft EIR comment period on September 28. VIII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 VERIZON EASTBLUFF MONOPOLE TELECOM (PA2017-256) Site Location: 2545 Eastbluff Drive Summary: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct a new wireless telecommunications facility at the rear of the Eastbluff Village Center. The proposed facility includes a 47 -foot -tall slimline monopole that is three feet in diameter to accommodate three sectors of panel antennas for Verizon Wireless. As proposed, the supporting equipment for the facility will be located on top of a replacement trash enclosure. Due to the installation type (i.e., freestanding), the proposed facility requires Planning Commission review. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2018-027 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017- 035. Associate Planner Benjamin Zdeba reported the project is located in the "back -of -house" area of Eastbluff Village Shopping Center. Zoning districts in the area are predominantly residential with some parks and open space. The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow a Class 4 freestanding installation, which is a 47 -foot slimline monopole. The pole height is measured from the existing grade. The pole will have a diameter of 3 feet, to house three sectors of panel antennas. Supporting equipment will be located within an enclosure structure, which will be placed atop a trash enclosure. The Building Division struggled with placing the structure atop a trash enclosure because of the risk of fire. In reviewing a wireless application, staff looks at the carrier's needs for coverage in the area. The proposed project would infill fair and poor coverage with good coverage, which is within the applicant's goal. In reviewing wireless facility applications, staff must make findings related to visual compatibility, compliance with design or development standards, alternative site locations, and alternative higher preference installations. The applicant identified the proposed project as the best option to meet coverage goals in the area. The project complies with the maximum height limitation for a wireless telecommunication facility in the nonresidential, non - shoreline height limit area. Staff believes the project has been sited appropriately away from public roads and residential uses and blends with the commercial back -of -house area of the Eastbluff Village Shopping Center. Condition of Approval No. 5 limits the height to 47 feet from the existing grade. Condition of Approval No. 6 will ensure that the facility is maintained in good order and retains its original appearance. Condition of Approval No. 18 requires Planning Division staff to inspect the facility prior to finalizing a building permit. 6of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 9/13/2018 In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Associate Planner Zdeba advised that standard conditions of approval apply to removal of a facility if the carrier abandons it. All Commissioners reported ex parte communications with the applicant's consultant. Paul Albritton, outside counsel for the applicant, Verizon Wireless, stated the use of wireless devices has grown exponentially with the amount of requested data almost doubling each year. In order to increase capacity, carriers add more cells and reduce the height of cells. The facility serving the area is overtaxed, and the coverage in the area is not good. The proposed facility will be the applicant's 29th macro site. The applicant and the City have negotiated a deal for priority zones, which the Police Department has identified as locations for small cells. Small cells provide capacity in very small areas. In -vehicle coverage is available for the Bluffs, but little in -building coverage is available. In addition, an existing sector cannot put out more data and cannot meet the demand for data during high capacity times. Sites cannot be located in residential zones and must be located distant from public facilities and parks. The consultant investigated alternate locations as required by the Municipal Code and determined a standalone facility would work best. The Irvine Company favors the slimline design. The pole houses two sets of antennas. The facility will enhance service for residents, visitors, and first responders. In reply to Commission queries, Mr. Albritton indicated Verizon does work with AT&T on some sites. He is not aware of the quality of AT&T's coverage in the area. Two carriers cannot co -locate on a slimline pole of this size. Wireless engineers review performance data to plan a network that will fulfill demand and improve deficient coverage. The Police Department can identify alternative sites, which can be added to the agreement between the City and the applicant. The proposed site will improve all of the service from the tower located at the church. With a 32 -foot pole, coverage is severely compromised, and lower antennas create the potential for RF emissions issues. Once a building permit is issued, the construction period is approximately two months. Chair Zak opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher disagreed with Mr. Albritton's comment that the monopole would disappear into the visual landscape. Monopoles are visible in a number of locations in Costa Mesa. He questioned whether other carriers with similar problems will have similar needs and suggested an alternative to a standalone facility. Chair Zak closed the public hearing. Commissioner Koetting remarked that perhaps the General Plan description should be amended. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines; and adopt Resolution No. PC2018-027 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017- 035. AYES: Zak, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Koetting, Kramer, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The Commission heard Agenda Item Number 5 next. ITEM NO.4 SHELL CAR WASH (PA2016-093) Site Location: 1600 Jamboree Road Summary: A general plan amendment and conditional use permit to construct an automated car wash in conjunction with an existing service station. A general plan amendment is requested to increase the maximum floor area limit for the site by 1,100 square feet to accommodate the proposed car wash. A conditional use permit is requested to allow the addition of the proposed car wash. 7of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 9/13/2018 Recommended Action: 1. Conduct apublic hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQAGuideinee. because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2018-028 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2018-001 and Conditional Use Permit Amendment No. UP2016-025. Chair Zak recused himself from the item because heowns real property located within 5UOfeet ofthe project. Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan reported the application proposes a car wash addition at the Shell service station located onthe corner ofJamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. The site contains aconvenience store and fueling stations. The projectpropoeeao1.1OO-oquens-fbotaddiUonforacarvmaah.queuingforfive vehicles, and onexterior vacuum. The addition iooriented toward the rear ofthe site, adjacent toafree right turn -lane off Jamboree. The site is surrounded by the Big Canyon Planned Community (PC), another service station across San Joaquin Hills Road. the Villas Condominiums at Fashion Island, and Park Newport Apartments across Jamboree. The site is designated for aservice obation, and the Shell service station has been in operation since 1870. A use permit amendment approved in 2014 allowed expansion of the convenience store into vacated service bays and added o license for alcoholic beverages. The addition requires aGeneral Plan amendment. The General Plan designation for the site iogeneral commercial (CG). which o|1ovva various commercial services. Anomaly 62 aUovm* o maximum of 2,300 gross square feet and matches the existing square footage of the service station, which prevents the service station from adding any square footage. Compared boother eemiceebaUonaandtothanizeofthe/ot.theequorefootogeiab000moU to provide the common nnn/ioae of modern oan/ima station. The General Plan amendment would o||ovv on addition of 1, 100 square feet to the existing maximum of 2,300 square feet. Based onthe increased square footage for commercial uaem, the project would resu{t in o slight increase in vehicle trips. However, the trips and additional square footage do notexceed the thresholds and do not require a public vote pursuantto Charter 423. Individually, the car wash use does not increase trips based on its specific use, as confirmed by the City Traffic Engineer. The proposed landscaping exceeds the minimum requirements. The project puovideeaxoaeo parking and the required five -car queuing for the car wash. Circulation will remain adequate and was reviewed bvthe City Traffic Engineer. The projectpnopoeeoedeviaUonhnmtheaetbookebandando|ongthefreeright turn -lane. The required setback standard is a minimum of 30 feet from all rights-of-way. The projectpropoaam o setback of 15feet from the free right turn -lane. The site has e triangular shape with three right-of-way frontages. The free right turn -lane does not provide access to the site, is ona-way, and is not similar to other streets. 7'heoanwooh is located 100 feet from the main intersection and abnete, is oriented toward the rear of the site, and provides adequate onsite queuing eerequired bythe Code. New hedges and vines will visually screen the free right turn -lane and Big Canyon residences. The two residences closest to the project one located 115feet and 12Ofeet across the free right tunn-|ano. Anoise study concluded that the anticipated noise levels of the car wash and the exterior vacuum comply with the City's noise ordinance. Based onthe noise etudy, staff conditioned the project to provide identical equipment types and |onmtione, door types and oonfiguroUona, and tinning for opening and closing the doors. The exterior vacuum must be located mouth of the convenience store and facing the intersection of Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road. Staff recommends the hours of operation be changed to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to minimize noise concerns. Exhibit A.referenced inthe resolution, was inadvertently omitted from the staff report. Fred hJm, business owner, shared his personal and business information. TJFuentes, applicant's consultant, advised that the applicant needs the car wash inorder to be competitive. Tomitigate concerns regarding parking, |ighUng, and aeetheUow, the applicant proposes tn retain the existing parking oto||e, to direct security lighting toward the property, to turn off lights for the hydrogen tank enclosure, and toadd vegetation tothe site. To mitigate noise concerns, the applicant will add entry and exit doors to the oanweah. Mike Holritz,applicant's noise consultant, indicated that locating the ends of the tunnels at 90 degrees to the residences iaintended toreduce noise levels. Noise levels were measured sdaSan Diego oanwaohthatueed the same equipment. Noise levels for the car wash and vacuum station comply with the City's noise ordinance 8of12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 9/13/2018 at all adjacent residential areas. The analysis assumes a 3 Decibel (dB) noise reduction for the berm that separates Big Canyon residences from the project site. All Commissioners reported ex parte communications with the applicant's consultant. In answer to Commissioners' questions, Assistant Planner Whelan clarified that the carwash would comply with the noise ordinance. The setback standard for a gas station is 30 feet. Staff believes the facts support a reduction of the setback to 15 feet. The site provides 13 parking spaces where nine are required. Space for five queued cars is required for the carwash. The 13 parking spaces are labeled on page 3 of the site plans. The project architect pointed out the 13 onsite parking spaces. Mr. Holritz explained that the projected noise levels for receptors A, B and C include the 3 dB reduction for the berm. A more realistic reduction would be 10 dB. Noise levels for a similar vacuum station located at a carwash in Aliso Viejo measured 77.5 dB at a distance of 10 feet. The projected noise levels for the project site are lower than the limits stated in the noise ordinance. Noise levels for Park Newport, which is closest to the vacuum, are 49.4 Decibels adjusted (dBa). Noise levels at the Villas of Fashion Island, which is approximately 340 feet from the vacuum, are 46.9 dBa. He estimated noise levels for Big Canyon residences at less than 30 dBa. The project architect indicated the gas station located across the street provides one vacuum station. The applicant has also proposed a single vacuum station as an amenity for customers. The carwash door is made of rigid plastic. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained that Policy LU3.2 provides a framework for making changes to the General Plan. Staff considered whether the site could perform as a modern service station and determined that the site is underperforming. The amendment would provide the project with parity for the site across the street. Staff does not believe the carwash would be detrimental to the community, based on the analysis. The request is reasonable and warrants a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Mr. Fuentes advised that the carwash across the street operates from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Vice Chair Weigand opened the public hearing. Iraj Kiani, 1 Rue Chateau Royal, expressed concerns about additional noise generated by the proposed carwash. He opposed the project. The doors may reduce noise, but they will not eliminate noise. David Kuhn, 30 Rue Fontainebleu, reported he received only a notice of the public hearing. He adamantly opposed any additional noise and light. He did not believe the Planning Commission could make the finding for Condition of Approval No. 5. The Planning Commission is not properly considering the cumulative impacts of previous use permit modifications, the need to show the service station is underperforming, the potential impact of car headlights shining into residential areas, the hours of operation, and the need for another carwash. Lynda Bentall, 38 Rue Fontainebleu, stated the project is an unnecessary, unwanted commercial convenience that would benefit only the owner. The existing service station impacts residents in the area. Mark Coleman, 34 Rue Fontainebleu, remarked that the berm accelerates noise from the service station to the Big Canyon residences. The City should not approve a project because the business is underperforming. He vehemently opposed the project. Helga Meyer, 33 Rue Fontainebleu, opposed the addition of a carwash and requested the Planning Commission deny the application. Jim Mosher noted the noise level exceeds the City's noise standard, and the ambient noise level is even greater. However, the noise standard contained in the noise ordinance is not clear. Staffs statement that the project will generate no new traffic conflicts with Table 1, which shows the project will generate more trips. He questioned the applicant's rationale for expanding the convenience store in 2014 rather than adding a car wash. Vice Chair Weigand closed the public hearing. In reply to Commission queries, Mr. Fuentes indicated the applicant proposes to add landscaping to cover the rear of the car wash. Landscaping will be approximately 14 feet in height, as requested by Staff. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported one of the homeowners association's removed some of the vegetation from the area between Big Canyon and the service station. He was not aware of a plan to 9of12 iNIXTkTJ Z0i1a Q ` . yaWA,I�i�i1�Le�K�Ii�iPuIE�L�LI 9/13/2018 replace any of the vegetation. The Planning Commission cannot compel the Big Canyon Homeowners' Association to do anything on its property. Assistant Planner Whelan advised that the existing service station operates from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Staff proposes the carwash operate from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell understood the car wash across the street operates from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Koetting remarked that the hours of operation and a reduction of the setback are ill conceived and unnecessary. The project is detrimental to the neighborhood. The circulation on the site does not work. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Secretary Dunlap to adopt an alternative Resolution No. PC2018-028 recommending City Council denial of General Plan Amendment No. GP2018-001 and Conditional Use Permit Amendment No. UP2016-025. AYES: Dunlap, Kleiman, Koetting NOES: Weigand, Kramer, Lowrey RECUSED: Zak ABSENT: None Motion made by Commissioner Kramer and seconded by Vice Chair Weigand to adopt Resolution No. PC2018-028 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2018-001 and Conditional Use Permit Amendment No. UP2016-025 with the hours of operation amended to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and a review of the hours of operation by the Community Development Director in one year. AYES: Weigand, Kramer, Lowrey NOES: Dunlap, Kleiman, Koetting RECUSED: Zak ABSENT: None Vice Chair Weigand noted correspondence from the Chamber of Commerce regarding the closing of a carwash; Approving the project could result in less travel for residents. Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to continue the item to a date uncertain. Commissioner Koetting remarked on the applicant's lack of community outreach, and Vice Chair Weigand suggested the applicant contact, at minimum, the homeowners' association for the property abutting the service station. Amended Motion by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to continue the item to a date certain of November 8, 2018. AYES: Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Koetting, Kramer, Lowrey NOES: None RECUSED: Zak ABSENT: None IX. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO. 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONER REQUALIFICATION FOR KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES (PA2015-024) Site Location: 4400 Von Karman Avenue Summary: Four members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission have a conflict of interest that prohibits their participation with the Koll Center Residences project. Because a majority of the Planning Commissioners have a conflict, State law allows for the requalification of one Planning Commissioner by means of random selection to participate on this Project. 10 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 9/13/2018 Recommended Action: 1. Find this event not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; 2. Randomly select one conflicted Planning Commissioner by drawing lots to participate in the process to consider the Koll Center Residences project; and 3. Identify a date for a future Planning Commission study session. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported four Commissioners have conflicts of interest with regard to the Koll Center Residences project; therefore, the Commission does not have a quorum for consideration of the project. State law allows one of the four Commissioners to be requalified for participation in the process. In essence, the four Commissioners will draw lots to determine who is requalified. The method chosen is to draw playing cards comprised of three black cards and one red card with the Commissioner randomly selecting the red card being requalified. He then requested the Commissioners restate their conflicts for the record. Commissioner Kramer identified his conflict of interest as business income generated from a business located within 500 feet of the project site. Commissioner Kleiman identified her conflict of interest as her husband's contractual relationship with the developer. Chair Zak identified his conflict of interest as an ownership interest in a business located within 500 feet of the project site. Commissioner Lowrey identified his conflict of interest as an equity membership in the Pacific Club The four playing cards were shown to the Commission and the public and were placed face down on a table and they were shuffled and randomized. The conflicted Commissioners were asked to select a card. Chair Zak randomly drew the one red card from four playing cards and was requalified to consider the Koll Center Residences project. Commissioners Kramer, Kleiman, and Lowrey recused themselves from further discussion of the item. After discussion of potentially scheduling a study session for December 61' or other potential dates, Chair Zak requested staff circulate alternate dates for Commissioners' consideration. Once a date is identified, it would be publically identified. Chair Zak departed the meeting at approximately 9:10 p.m. X. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO.6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO.7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Update on City Council Items - Community Development Director Jurjis reported the September 20, 2018, Planning Commission meeting is canceled. The City Council will review the variance application for 3200 Ocean Boulevard, which the Planning Commission previously approved. 11 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 9113/2018 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 Vice Chair Weigand advised that his presence at the October 4 meeting is questionable. XI. ADJOURNMENT —10:26 p.m. The agenda for the September 13, 2018, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, September 7, 2018, at 3:37 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center iv and on the City's website on Friday, September 7, 2018, at 2:50 p.m. Peter Zak, CHalrsWan Seimone Jurjis, Com elopment Director, Ex -Officio Secretary 12 of 12