HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Draft Minutes_06-03-2021
1 of 6
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2021 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 – Commissioner Koetting III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Mark Rosene ABSENT: Vice Chair Lee Lowrey, Commissioner Curtis Ellmore Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Principal Planner Matthew Schneider, Associate Planner David Lee, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative Technician Amanda Lee IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher noted an appeal of the Director's Determination regarding hotel conversions is scheduled for July 8, 2021. Absent the May 6, 2021 agenda item, neither the Planning Commission nor the public would have known the Director made a determination or that it was appealable. The Director's Determination is available on the City's website under Administrative Approvals. Another Director's Determination regarding setbacks in the Bayshores community has been made. He questioned Staff's use of a Director's Determination rather than amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 6, 2021 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Weigand noted Mr. Mosher's proposed revisions to the minutes. Motion made by Commissioner Rosene and seconded by Secretary Kleiman to approve the minutes of the May 6, 2021 meeting with Mr. Mosher's revisions. AYES: Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene, Kleiman, Weigand NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ellmore, Lowrey ITEM NO. 2 IBBETSON TRUST ENCROACHMENT (PA2021-088) Site Location: 400 Aliso Avenue Summary: A request to install non-compliant private improvements within the Aliso Avenue and Beacon Street public rights-of-way consisting of a 30-inch high fence with two inward-swinging gates that encroach up to six feet into the public right-of-way. The property owner requests to install landscaping with a maximum growth characteristic that ranges between 3-feet and 7-feet in height. City Staff recommends the installation of landscaping with a maximum growth characteristic of 24 inches high within the "limited use area" and 36 inches high within the remaining portions of public right-of-way.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 3, 2021
2 of 6
Recommended Action: 1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures),
because it has no significant effect on the environment; 2. Waive City Council Policy L-6, Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way, to install non-compliant private improvements consisting of a 30-inch high fence with two gates that encroach into the Aliso Avenue and Beacon Street public rights-of-way, contingent upon all conditions of the Encroachment Permit process being met; 3. Comply with Public Works Standard 105, Intersection Line of Sight Requirements, and City
Council Policy L-6 to limit landscaping with a maximum growth characteristic of 24 inches within the "limited use area" and 36 inches within the remaining Aliso Avenue and Beacon Street public rights-of-way; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-014 waiving City Council Policy L-6 and approving Encroachment
Permit No. N2021-0158.
In response to Commissioner Rosene's question, Community Development Director Jurjis reported within the last two years City Council authorized the Planning Commission to approve or deny waivers of Council Policy L-6 so that the City Council is the appellate body for such decisions. These items may be listed on the agenda as a consent or public hearing item, and typically they are consent items.
Commissioner Koetting appreciated the professional quality of the applicant's drawings.
Motion made by Commissioner Rosene and seconded by Commissioner Koetting to approve the staff
recommendation.
AYES: Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene, Kleiman, Weigand NOES:
RECUSED: ABSENT: Ellmore, Lowrey
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 BSP BRISTOL, LLC MEDICAL OFFICES (PA2020-052) Site Location: 1400 and 1420 North Bristol Street Summary: A condominium conversion in conjunction with a tentative parcel map to convert two existing two-story office buildings to medical office condominiums, creating between 22 to 30 ownership units. The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit for the reduction of 38 on-site parking spaces to accommodate the conversion to medical office. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-015 approving Condominium Conversion No. CC2020-002, Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2020-003, Traffic Study No. TS2021-001, and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2020-185.
Associate Planner Lee reported the project is located on the corner of Bristol Street North and Spruce Street. The site is designated as General Commercial Office (CO-G) and zoned as Newport Place Planned Community (PC11), specifically Industrial Site 3A of PC11. Both professional and medical office uses are allowed in Industrial
Site 3A. The lot contains approximately 100,000 square feet, and the existing office buildings total 37,515 square feet. An existing onsite parking lot provides 154 spaces. The buildings were constructed in 1978, and a
modification permit was issued in 1977 for compact parking spaces. The applicant requests a conditional use permit to reduce parking and a condominium conversion and tentative parcel map to convert rental units to ownership condominiums. Because the project exceeds 300 average daily trips, a traffic study has been
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 3, 2021
3 of 6
prepared for the project. The required parking for the existing professional office use is 167 spaces, and the site provides 154 spaces. The required parking for a medical office use is 188 spaces, and the applicant has proposed 150 spaces. A parking study found five comparable Orange County medical office buildings that
provide 3.87 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Applying that rate to the project results in a parking demand of 145 spaces at peak times. Staff has proposed a condition of approval for the applicant to submit a subsequent parking study with live parking counts no sooner than six months after certificates of occupancy have been issued for 70 percent of medical office spaces to verify the parking ratio determined by the parking study is providing adequate parking for the medical use. The traffic study concluded that intersections would continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service and improvements are not necessary.
In reply to Commissioner Koetting's inquiries, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated one accessible parking space per 20 parking spaces is required for medical office use, and accessible spaces count toward the total parking requirement. Associate Planner Lee advised that the applicant has not proposed offsite parking.
The conditions of approval require elevators large enough to accommodate gurneys. City Traffic Engineer Brine explained that a traffic study looks at the typical peak morning and afternoon hours for general office use. Traffic
flow for medical use is typically spread across the day. In answer to Secretary Kleiman's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis stated the parking requirement for accessible spaces for medical office use is higher than commercial office use. Associate Planner
Lee indicated the parking requirement is based on square footage of the buildings rather than number of units. The exact number of units would be determined in the final parcel map process. The applicant is not changing
the square footage of the buildings; therefore, the parking requirement will not change. The applicant has some flexibility to divide the total square footage into units of different sizes. The conversion from general office to
medical office combined with existing requirements for parking lots result in a larger parking deficit.
In response to Commissioner Rosene's queries, Associate Planner Lee stated the compact parking spaces do not comply with current Code requirements. Because the parking lot has been restriped since the compact
spaces were permitted, the compact spaces are not eligible for grandfathering. The proposal will improve the safety and circulation of the site. Community Development Director Jurjis added that compact spaces are not
allowed currently. Staff did not consider the larger size of the elevator cab in the floor area calculation. The larger size may change the parking requirement by one space.
In reply to Commissioner Klaustermeier's inquiries, Associate Planner Lee explained that if the subsequent
parking study concludes that the number of spaces is suitable for 70 percent occupancy only, the Director has the authority to cap medical office use at 70 percent, and the remaining 30 percent would remain commercial
office use.
In answer to Chair Weigand's question, Associate Planner Lee advised that the applicant is working on signage to prevent parking in adjacent lots and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to assign parking
spaces to condominium units.
Commissioner Rosene and Secretary Kleiman disclosed a telephone conversation with the applicant's attorney while Commissioner Koetting and Chair Weigand disclosed a telephone conversation with the applicant's
consultant. Commissioner Klaustermeier disclosed no ex parte communications. Chair Weigand opened the public hearing.
Phil Greer, applicant's attorney, advised that he and Mr. Light have discussed several potential solutions for parking concerns, such as signage, monitoring the lot, and fencing to restrict access. The proposal reduces the
number of parking spaces but improves maneuverability and safety within the lot. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's queries, Mr. Greer indicated that the current owner purchased the property approximately a year ago. He did not know of the parking deficit with the use remaining general office. Based
on the parking analysis, five additional spaces would be available for the proposed medical use. The parking deficit per the zoning code is 38 spaces if all square footage converts to medical office use.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 3, 2021
4 of 6
In response to Commissioner Rosene's questions, Mr. Greer related that utilities will be apportioned to each occupant. He did not have examples of buildings that limit parking by assigning parking spaces to tenants. Tenants of larger spaces would be assigned more parking spaces.
Secretary Kleiman suggested a parking management plan for employees may be the best way to manage parking. A deficit of 38 spaces is concerning. Mr. Greer advised that the applicant is open to suggestions for employee parking and wants to be a good neighbor. In reply to Chair Weigand's queries, Associate Planner Lee indicated general offices were located in buildings
around the project site. Those buildings may have excess parking that could accommodate employee parking. The parking requirement for medical office use occupying 70 percent of the total square footage is 102 spaces, which leaves 48 spaces for general office use. Parking requirements were based on findings from the parking study. If parking is sufficient for only 70 percent occupancy by medical offices, the applicant may explore
alternative parking solutions at that time. The parking study found the greatest parking demand occurred around 11 a.m. Mr. Greer reiterated that CC&Rs will help modulate parking demand.
Commissioner Koetting expressed concern about compliance with Code requirements rather than the findings from the parking study. Approval of an infeasible concept is not likely. Enforcing conditions of approval prohibiting urgent care and mini surgery centers will be difficult.
In answer to Commissioner Koetting's questions, Mr. Greer advised that staff would calculate the applicant's fair
share of the fee for converting from general office to medical office. The amount depends on the amount of square footage converted to medical office.
Jim Light, 1401 Quail Street, calculated the parking requirement for 70 percent occupancy by medical office uses
at 130 spaces rather than 102 spaces. Usable square footage totals approximately 37,000 square feet and does not include 5,000 square feet in hallways, common areas, and the like. Based on his experience, the parking
requirement should be calculated on 42,000 square feet. The proposed parking does not comply with Code requirements for current uses, and the deficit will increase with conversion to medical office use. He did not
believe 145 or 150 parking spaces would accommodate parking demand. He suggested the Planning Commission continue the item so that neighbors could review the project and staff report in detail. Otherwise,
he supported denial of the application.
In reply to Secretary Kleiman's queries, Mr. Light advised that parking intrusion from the subject site is not currently an issue. Based on personal observations, he thought the number of existing spaces is appropriate for
the current parking demand. Mr. Greer and he discussed potential solutions earlier in the day, and he needed time to consider them.
Mr. Greer reiterated that the applicant and Mr. Light are willing to consider alternatives, and the applicant is willing
to work with staff. If the Planning Commission approves the application, the Commission and neighbors will have opportunities to modify the project as it proceeds.
Secretary Kleiman supported the request to convert general office space to medical office space; however,
additional work is needed to reduce the parking deficit and reach compromises with neighbors. Mr. Greer noted the physical constraints of the site and the probable inability to significantly reduce the parking deficit.
In reply to Commissioner Klaustermeier's question, Community Development Director Jurjis reported staff
supports the project with the condition for a subsequent parking study. Without that condition of approval, staff probably would not recommend approval. Commissioner Koetting did not believe the application is ready for review due to the number of unanswered
questions. As Mr. Light noted, the parking requirement is calculated using gross floor area, which includes square footage for hallways and such. He would not support approval of the application as proposed because of the 25-35 percent parking reduction, staff review of the subsequent parking study, impacts on neighbors, and other medical office uses not receiving parking reductions.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 3, 2021
5 of 6
Chair Weigand closed the public hearing. Principal Planner Schneider advised that the site is located in the Newport Place Planned Community, which
prescribes the use of net area in calculating the parking requirement. According to the tax assessor's records, the building contains slightly more than 40,000 square feet. In calculating the parking requirement, staff utilized total floor area of 40,000 square feet and net area of 37,500 square feet. Staff proposed a condition of approval requiring a subsequent parking study to validate or refute proposals, assumptions, and findings. Modifying the conversion percentage and the six-month timeframe provided in the condition of approval is within the Planning Commission's purview.
In response to Chair Weigand's query, Community Development Director Jurjis explained that general office use is allowed now and, if the application is approved, will be allowed to occupy 30 percent of the total space while 70 percent converts to medical office use. Once medical office use is permitted in 70 percent of the space and
the subsequent parking study is found to be acceptable, the remaining 30 percent may convert to medical office use.
Commissioner Klaustermeier noted that a parking deficit exists for any of the scenarios. The Planning Commission may impose the condition of approval for a subsequent parking study or require the applicant to construct a parking structure. Other solutions, such as offsite parking, are possible.
Chair Weigand reopened the public hearing.
In response to Chair Weigand's question, Mr. Greer agreed to a continuance of the item.
Commissioner Koetting proposed a condition of approval limiting conversion to 50 percent or 60 percent, staff
provide accurate measurements and calculations, and the applicant provide an accurate site plan if the Planning Commission continues the item. Any subsequent parking study should be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission as opposed to a Director’s level review.
Commissioner Rosene preferred to continue the item in order to obtain additional information.
Secretary Kleiman appreciated staff's proposed condition of approval. However, managing two uses and ownership and rental properties sounds like a nightmare.
Motion made by Secretary Kleiman and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to continue the item to the July
8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting.
AYES: Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene, Kleiman, Weigand NOES:
RECUSED: ABSENT: Ellmore, Lowrey
VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 5 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Community Development Director Jurjis reported the June 8, 2021 Council meeting includes a study session regarding the Housing Element and a 90-day extension of emergency temporary use permits for outdoor dining. The June 17, 2021 Planning Commission meeting has been canceled. A virtual Housing Element community
workshop is scheduled for June 21, 2021. The July 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting will include election of officers, appeal of the Director's Determination regarding conversion of hotel units, and the project at 1400 Bristol Street.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 3, 2021
6 of 6
In answer to Chair Weigand's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated the Council directed staff to study parking, parking standards, and curb management. The proposal is to extend permits for 90 days,
during which restaurants may submit applications for limited term permits. Applications for limited term permits will be reviewed by all relevant City departments and subject to the public hearing process before the Zoning Administrator. The intention is also to complete and obtain Council approval of the first phase of the parking study prior to the end of the year. Principal Planner Schneider advised that preliminary results of the parking study appear to support a reduction in parking standards.
In response to Commissioner Koetting's query, Community Development Director Jurjis related his understanding that the Fun Zone's new owner intends to preserve and enhance existing structures. Jim Mosher advised that he found no announcement of the Housing Element community workshop on the
Newport Together website earlier in the day. The workshop and Council study session should be publicized on the City website.
ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Klaustermeier announced her absence for the July 8, 2021 meeting.
X. ADJOURNMENT – 7:55 p.m.
The agenda for the June 3, 2021, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, May 27, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City’s website on Thursday, May 27, 2021, at 12:08 p.m. _______________________________ Erik Weigand, Chairman _______________________________
Lauren Kleiman, Secretary