Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190620_PC_MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes June 20, 2019 Sanford Smith, Hoag Hospital Senior Vice President for Real Estate and Facilities, agreed with the terms outlined in the staff recommendation. Jim Mosher assumed a consequence of approving the requested extension of the Development Agreement would be the insulation of Hoag Hospital from potential changes resulting from the General Plan update. He questioned whether changes in the General Plan update would apply to Hoag Hospital upon expiration of the Development Agreement in 2029. Chair Zak closed the public hearing. In answer to Commissioners' questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the City could not amend the General Plan to reduce the development intensity at Hoag Hospital if the City Council adopts the requested Development Agreement extension. Any development agreement involves negotiation. Negotiations and terms of a development agreement are within the Council's discretion. The City has a pattern of requiring public benefit payments as a provision of development agreements, and he suspected the pattern would continue. He would not speculate as to possible actions in ten years. Chair Zak reopened the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's queries, Mr. Smith explained that having a development agreement allowed Hoag Hospital to respond fairly rapidly to the changing needs of the community. Development is dictated by need, advances in medical technology, and community philanthropy and support. Hoag Hospital does not have a specific plan for the lower campus. Chair Zak closed the public hearing. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the Zoning Administrator conducts the annual review of the agreement each year. In the past few years, Hoag Hospital has been found in good faith compliance with the Development Agreement. Hoag Hospital has been working to resolve noise issues. City Attorney Harp indicated City staff typically leads the development agreement negotiations. The amount of the benefit is an issue for the Council rather than the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kleiman believed the language of Development Agreement Section 2(a) could be written more clearly. City Attorney Harp advised that staff would review the language before presenting it to the City Council. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to find all significant environmental concerns for the proposed project have been addressed in a previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Supplemental EIR, and that the City of Newport Beach intends to use said document for the above noted project, and further that there are no additional reasonable alternative or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with said project; and adopt Resolution No. PC2019-019 recommending City Council adoption of Development Agreement No. DA2018-004 amending Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 5 to extend the term of the agreement by ten (10) years. AYES: Zak, Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman, Koetting, Kramer NOES: RECUSED: Ell more ABSENT: ITEM NO. 5: HO SUM BISTRO (PA2019-001) Site Location: 3112 Newport Boulevard Summary: Conditional use permit to change the existing fast food (take-out service), eating and drinking establishment to a new food service, eating and drinking establishment. In conjunction with this change, the applicant requests to upgrade the current Alcoholic Beverage Control License Type from a Type 41 (On-Sale Beer & Wine -Eating Place) to a Type 47 (On-Sale General -Eating Place), to allow the use 9 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 2019 of the upstairs dining area throughout the day, and reduce the hours of operation to exclude late hours (i.e. no operations after 11 :00 p.m.). The applicant also requests a continuation of historical parking reductions. 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. PC2019-020 approving Conditional Use Permit UP2019-002 (PA2019- 001) and rescinding Use Permit No. UP3110. Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland reported the restaurant is located on the Balboa Peninsula near the Lido House Hotel, Sabatinos, and the former Rudy's. The applicant seeks to upgrade its existing alcohol license to a Type 47 license for full liquor. The applicant proposes to reduce the hours of operation such that the restaurant will close by 11 :00 p.m. The Police Department supports the application because one less facility will operate with alcohol service after 11 :00 p.m .. Granting the application will allow staff to implement modern conditions and standards. The Use Permit was last updated in 1991. No issues related to the restaurant have been reported. The applicant also requests full use of the upstairs dining area as use of the area is currently restricted to evening hours only. The applicant requests continuation of historical parking reductions. The 1991 Use Permit allows a Type 41 license for beer and wine, hours of operation until midnight during the week and 1 :00 a.m. on weekends, 43 total seats with 12 of the 43 seats located in the upstairs dining area. Assistant Planner Westmoreland indicated the restaurant was considered a take-out restaurant in 1991 and parking demand was based on the gross floor area. The current Zoning Code calculates parking demand based on the area in which the public will dine and spend time. The restaurant contains 501 square feet of net public area with approximately 200 square feet located in the upstairs dining area. Using a moderate demand rate of one space per 40 square feet of net public area, parking demand is calculated as 13 spaces, for which a waiver of eight spaces is needed. The 1991 Use Permit granted a parking waiver for 29 spaces. This large reduction from the existing Use Permit justifies staff recommending the applicant be allowed full use of the upstairs dining area. The location of the existing accessible parking space is problematic; therefore, staff recommends relocation of the accessible parking space such that it is directly adjacent to the alley. A second benefit of relocating the accessible space is individuals who need to use the accessible entrance can access it directly and safely from the sidewalk. In addition, relocating the accessible space will provide a small space for construction of a trash enclosure. Staff requests the applicant construct a trash enclosure in the small space to the extent feasible. Staff proposes an additional condition of approval that prohibits the applicant from displaying alcohol-related advertisements and sig nage. In reply to Commissioners' inquiries, Assistant Planner Westmoreland advised that according to the approved use permit plans, the restaurant currently contains 43 seats. Under the proposed plans, the restaurant will contain 33 seats. Staff has conditioned the upstairs dining area specifically to contain only 12 seats. Overall, the restaurant will have approximately 33 total seats. Staff did not find any complaints alleging that the restaurant has provided full service in the upstairs area during daytime hours. However, as the Use Permit was approved in 1991, it is possible that knowledge of the conditions may have been lost over time. Staff finds that updating these older use permits allows for improved enforcement. Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications. Chair Zak opened the public hearing. Ed O'Neill, owner/operator, indicated the restaurant caters to sit-down clientele and offers takeout. Over the years, customers have requested liquor service, and he has always replied that a liquor license was cost prohibitive. The restaurant won a liquor license through the lottery system. Because of customers' loyalty following a fire and reconstruction of the restaurant, he wants to grant customers' requests for liquor service. He operates a neighborhood restaurant and has no desire to operate a bar. The restaurant does not operate during late hours and does not play loud music. Neither neighbors nor the general public have complained about inappropriate or unruly behavior related to the restaurant. He accepted the proposed conditions of approval. 1 O of 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 2019 In response to Commissioner Kleiman's question, Mr. O'Neill related that he has not been able to utilize the upstairs dining room prior to 6:00 p.m. The upstairs dining room is used for overflow parties probably a couple of times per week on a limited basis. Commissioner Koetting reported he observed 12 to 14 people having lunch in the upstairs dining area at 1 :30 on Tuesday this week. Mr. O'Neill explained that chairs salvaged from the fire are stored outside. If an exceptionally large group comes into the restaurant, chairs are brought in from the outside storage. The existing seating will be reduced from 43 to 33 if the use permit is approved. Most of the restaurant business is takeout. Chair Zak closed the public hearing. In answer to Vice Chair Weigand's question, Assistant Planner Westmoreland advised that staff considered the applicant's proposed seating plan for 33 seats. Prior to the fire, the restaurant had counter seating in the upstairs and in the front of the first floor. The counter seating no longer exists. Compliance with accessibility requirements will cause the elimination of a few seats. Staff attempted to fit as many seats as possible into the space while maintaining compliance with Building Code standards. Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Chair Zak to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines; and adopt Resolution No. PC2019-020 approving Conditional Use Permit UP2019-002 (PA2019- 001) and rescinding Use Permit No. UP3110. AYES: Zak, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Kleiman, Koetting, Kramer NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 None ITEM NO. 7 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FORMATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Community Development Director Jurjis thanked Chair Zak and Commissioner Kramer for their service to the City and the community. Chair Zak remarked that members of the public offered thoughtful comments to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kramer thanked Larry Tucker for serving as his mentor and thanked his family for their support. Vice Chair Weigand appreciated Chair Zak's and Commissioner Kramer's knowledge and service. Community Development Director Jurjis reported the July 4 meeting is canceled. If the developer of the 4302 Ford Road project submits a redesigned project, staff will schedule it for a public hearing and notice the community of the date and time of the hearing. ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None Commissioner Kramer appreciated working with a very talented staff over the prior eight years. He encouraged staff to consider a broad vision for the future of the City in the General Plan Update. Working with his fellow Commissioners has been a pleasure. 11 of 12