HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2020 - Planning Commission1 of 8
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2020 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, Vice Chair Lee Lowrey (joined remotely at 7:02 p.m.), Secretary Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Mark Rosene ABSENT: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Principal Planner Matt Schneider, Associate Planner Chelsea Crager, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez and Administrative Support Technician Amanda Lee IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 2020 Recommended Action: Approve and file
Chair Weigand noted Mr. Jim Mosher's proposed revision. Motion made by Commissioner Rosene and seconded by Commissioner Klaustermeier to approve the minutes of the November 5, 2020, meeting with Mr. Mosher's revision.
AYES: Weigand, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene NOES: ABSTAIN: Kleiman, Ellmore ABSENT: Lowrey VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE STATUS REPORT Summary: Staff will provide a presentation focusing on the existing Circulation Element, definitions and terminology, themes, coordination with other agencies and the update process.
City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine reported the goal of tonight's discussion is to introduce the existing Circulation Element and to provide opportunities for community engagement. The primary goal of the Circulation Element is to provide a safe and convenient transportation system throughout the City. The Circulation Element correlates closely to the Land Use Element because it provides the best possible balance between land development and roadway size. Because the Upper Bay divides the City, there are essentially two east-west roadways within the City, Coast Highway and Bristol Street, which focus traffic on those facilities. The Orange County Transportation Authority
Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2020
2 of 8
(OCTA) oversees the regional transportation system and the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Because OCTA oversees regional planning, the City's transportation system must be consistent with OCTA and its Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Currently, Level of Service (LOS) is used to measure the impacts of a development project. LOS
ranges from A, free flow, to F, breakdown flow. State law mandates the inclusion of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Complete Streets in the Circulation Element Update. VMT is the new metric for determining a development project's impacts on traffic in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. The goal of the Complete Streets Program is to ensure that streets accommodate all users. The Circulation Element contains 15 goals, and 90-plus policies that are grouped into eight themes.
The Planning Commission recessed from 6:45 p.m. to 6:50 p.m. to resolve broadcast technical issues. City Traffic Engineer Brine continued his presentation with the Circulation Element themes of Mobility, Roadway System, Regional Transportation, Public Transportation, Alternative Transportation Modes, Transportation System
Management, Parking, and Transportation Funding. The roadway network is planned to provide capacity that accommodates existing and projected traffic based on current and built-out land uses. Existing and projected traffic
includes local and regional traffic. The 2014 Bicycle Master Plan will be incorporated into the Circulation Element Update. While the Bicycle Master Plan will not be updated, it may be revised to reflect completed projects and new projects. Staff coordinates City plans and projects with OCTA, Caltrans, and adjacent jurisdictions. Community workshops planned for December 15 and 16, 2020, will discuss in detail the Circulation Element themes and
retaining, eliminating, and updating goals and policies. A January 13, 2021, workshop will discuss the vision for transportation and solicit community feedback. Staff plans to return to the Planning Commission on January 21,
2021.
In response to Commissioner Koetting's questions, City Traffic Engineer Brine advised that the City and surrounding jurisdictions attempt to coordinate trail systems among the cities. The shoulder of Coast Highway functions as a bike
lane into Huntington Beach. Traffic calming is the installation of speed bumps, chokers, and traffic circles in residential neighborhoods. Over time, speed humps or bumps have improved such that the Fire Department no
longer prohibits them. The overall goal of the Circulation Element is to improve efficiency without increasing capacity. For the Housing Element Update, staff will model projected traffic distributions and perform a traffic analysis.
Charles Klobe hoped the Planning Commission would recommend the City Council update the 2014 Bicycle Master
Plan to incorporate electric modes of transportation and include the updated master plan in the Circulation Element Update.
David Tanner suggested an additional theme of a Citywide carbon standard. He inquired regarding an overview of
how the existing Circulation Element has met the vision to reduce average daily traffic (ADT) or how it will be addressed in the Circulation Element Update; the date a project description will be available; and a discussion of
existing laws, primarily housing laws, and their impact on the existing circulation system.
Chair Weigand explained that staff would seek public input at the community workshops in December and January. Tonight's discussion is intended to make the public aware of the workshops. The comment about electric bikes is
important, and there needs to be more focus on them. City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated adding new policies and adjusting the Bicycle Master Plan is possible.
Susan DeSantis asked if the Circulation Element needs to reflect major policy directions contained in the Sustainable Community Strategy and requested VMT mitigations that do not include capacity enhancements.
City Traffic Engineer Brine noted sustainable requirements and laws will be reviewed in the update. Many things can be included in VMT mitigations, such as bike racks onsite and additional transit improvements in the area of the
project. In reply to Chair Weigand's inquiry, City Traffic Engineer Brine advised that a consultant would perform a traffic study if a CEQA-level analysis is needed for a project. The consultant would analyze VMT and LOS because the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance (TPO) calls for an LOS analysis. Hoiyin Ip related that 30 percent of a city's traffic is attributed to drivers looking for parking. Technology can help the City with transportation and circulation.
Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2020
3 of 8
Dorothy Kraus remarked that without a master plan for the Airport Area and West Newport Mesa, updating the Circulation Element is premature. A master plan should facilitate a circulation plan that the community will support.
Karen Tringali inquired about metrics to measure the actual impacts of a development on traffic and circulation. City Traffic Engineer Brine explained that the General Plan provides the ultimate trip numbers for the build out. As projects are developed, their impacts can be compared to the build-out trip numbers. In answer to Chair Weigand's query, he did not know if the Planning Commission or the Council would call such a comparison for review.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
ITEM NO. 3 INDUSTRIAL ZONING (IG) ZONING DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS (PA2020-042) Site Location: The Industrial (IG) Zoning District is in the northwest corner of the City near Costa Mesa along Production Place, 16th Street, and portions of Monrovia Avenue Summary: Amendments to Sections 20.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases), 20.24.020 (Industrial Zoning District Land Uses and Permit Requirements), 20.40.040 (Off-Street Parking Spaces Required), and 20.48.090 (Eating and Drinking Establishments) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. These amendments would allow food service uses subject to obtaining a minor use permit and the operation of wine tasting rooms subject to obtaining a conditional use permit in the IG Zoning District. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this action proposed herein is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-041 recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2020-005 to amend Sections 20.24.020 (Industrial Zoning District Land Uses and Permit Requirements), 20.40.040 (Off-Street Parking Spaces Required), 20.48.090 (Eating and Drinking Establishments), and 20.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases), of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Associate Planner Chelsea Crager reported in April 2020, the Council initiated a Code amendment and directed staff to consider allowing food and alcohol in the General Industrial (IG) Zoning District. On July 23, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve a wine tasting ordinance without a 500-foot separation from similar uses. In August 2020, the City Council considered the draft ordinance and directed the inclusion of the 500-foot separation to the ordinance, directed staff to conduct additional public outreach, and referred the ordinance to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Notices of an October 19 virtual workshop were hand-delivered and mailed to all property owners and properties in the IG Zoning District and all property owners within 300 feet of the IG Zoning District and along 15th Street. In addition, staff posted the notice to the website and social media and issued a news splash. A majority of the 31 workshop attendees supported the ordinance; however, attendees raised concerns regarding parking, General Plan consistency, and spot zoning. Staff posted notices for this Planning Commission hearing at 18 sites in the IG Zoning District, mailed notices to property owners and properties in the IG district and in the expanded area, published a notice in the newspaper, and emailed notices to workshop attendees. Associate Planner Crager explained that IG zoning is intended to provide a wide range of moderate- to low-intensity industrial uses and limited ancillary commercial and office uses. Properties surrounding the IG Zoning District are zoned residential, public facility, private institution, and commercial. The IG Zoning District is intended to provide for light- to moderate-intensity industrial uses and some accessory commercial uses such as assembly spaces, alcohol sales, retail sales, takeout food, and health and fitness facilities. Some small accessory uses are present and allowed in the IG Zoning District.
Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2020
4 of 8
Associate Planner Crager continued to explain that a wine tasting room operates under a Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) duplicate Type 2 license, which does not allow onsite production but allows onsite and offsite consumption of wine produced by the winery holding the master Type 2 license. The proposed ordinance is
intended to establish wine tasting rooms only. Under the ordinance, a wine tasting room may operate in the IG Zoning District subject to approval of a conditional use permit (CUP), may serve wine only, may allow onsite and offsite consumption, may not operate as a restaurant, may not offer live entertainment, may operate Monday through Friday 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday 12 p.m. to 11 p.m., is subject to a parking requirement of one space per four persons, and is subject to a 500-foot separation from schools and a 500-foot separation between other wine tasting rooms.
Associate Planner Crager noted that the Orange Coast Winery is not an approved wine tasting room but, if the ordinance is approved, it could apply for a CUP. Spot zoning is permissible when facts support more or less restrictive zoning as being in the public interest. If the 500-foot separation is included in the ordinance, only two
buildings would lie outside a separation zone around the Orange Coast Winery. The 500-foot separation from schools provides a public benefit of minimizing minors' exposure to alcohol. The 500-foot separation between wine
tasting rooms prevents overconcentration and ensures commercial uses remain limited within the IG zone. Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell clarified that the separation requirements are necessary to help protect the public's health and safety. Allowing these uses in the IG zone will expand opportunities within the
IG zone. Staff believes these public benefits are in the public interest; therefore, spot zoning is permissible.
In reply to Secretary Kleiman's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that Orange Coast Winery was originally authorized as something different. When ownership changed, the new owner modified
the business and expanded into adjacent suites, at which time staff became aware of the problem. The operator's attempts to find a different location for the business proved difficult, and staff considered amending the Code to
possibly allow this type of use. Staff learned of the business approximately two years ago. Associate Planner Crager indicated a restaurant or bar could be permitted by right or subject to a use permit, depending on various factors, in
most commercial zones in the City. If a business does not meet the requirements for a wine tasting room, it could be considered a restaurant or bar if allowed in that zone. An establishment serving alcohol and no food is generally
considered a bar.
In answer to Commissioner Rosene's inquiries, Associate Planner Crager explained that a wine tasting room is different from a wine bar due to the ABC duplicate Type 2 license required for a wine tasting room. Orange Coast
Winery holds a master Type 2 license. Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill indicated the objective of Finding 2 in the proposed resolution is to limit the amendment to wine tasting rooms.
In response to Commissioner Koetting's queries, Associate Planner Crager related that the hours of operation end
at 11 p.m. because anything later is considered late hours and requires additional review. Closing at 11 p.m. rather than 9 p.m. provides the establishment with some flexibility. More restrictive hours of operation may be conditioned
in the CUP for a wine tasting room. A wine tasting room may not serve wines from other wineries. In response to concerns that wine tasting rooms could become prevalent in the IG Zoning District, staff proposed a 500-foot
separation between wine tasting rooms.
Commissioner Koetting expressed surprise at the inclusion of a 500-foot separation because multiple wine tasting rooms operate well in close proximity in Carmel, and tourists like it. Vice Chair Lowrey and Chair Weigand disclosed conversations with the applicant's consultant. Commissioner
Rosene disclosed communications with an adjacent property owner. Commissioners Kleiman, Koetting, and Ellmore disclosed phone calls from the applicant's attorney. Commissioner Klaustermeier disclosed no ex parte
communications. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the City of Newport Beach is the applicant. The Council initiated the amendment at the request of Orange Coast Winery. Commissioners mistakenly referred to
Orange Coast Winery as the applicant. Chair Weigand opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2020
5 of 8
Jim Mosher believed a wine tasting room is not complementary, accessory, or ancillary to industrial uses. Wine production is not allowed on the site of a wine tasting room, but food processing is allowed by right in the Industrial zone. A wine tasting room will not operate as a wine bar, but the Code does not prevent that. Staff stated the
difference between a wine tasting room and a wine bar is food service. The ordinance states a wine tasting room may serve incidental food. There is no limit on the amount of wine that may be consumed in a wine tasting room. He did not understand the difference between a wine tasting room and a winery. Phillip Greer, attorney for Orange Coast Winery, advised that Orange Coast Winery is not a bar, a wine bar, or a restaurant and does not sell beer, alcohol, or wines from other wineries. Staff has visited the area and found
adequate parking in the area. The establishment's maximum capacity is 49 people. Orange Coast Winery is a neighborhood gathering spot and provides a public benefit. Several businesses located near Orange Coast Winery attended the workshop and were enthusiastic about the proposal.
Gordon Wanlass remarked that changing the zoning for the entire district should be handled in the General Plan. Because one business is in violation of the zoning, the City is proposing to change the look and feel of the entire
district. This issue has been dealt with previously. Dorothy Kraus did not understand staff's explanation of spot zoning. She expressed concerns that a request from one business has triggered a Code amendment and that a zoning change is being considered in advance of the
Housing Element Update.
Richard Allred supported the proposal, expanding it to the entire IG Zoning District, and removing the 500-foot separations. He suggested approval of a CUP be based on the individual property rather than the separations.
Ian Elliott commented on the lack of parking in the IG Zoning District and a large manufacturer utilizing dangerous
materials next to a food preparation business. Zoning should be handled in the General Plan.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the ordinance addresses most of the concerns. The Council has provided feedback regarding the 500-foot separations. Staff will be looking at the IG Zoning District
for potential housing development as part of the Housing Element update process. A business owner (The Orange Coast Winery) is keenly interested in the outcome; therefore, staff cannot delay the proposed amendment to prepare
a master plan for the area.
In reply to Chair Weigand's request, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill reported zoning specific properties is common for the Planning Commission. People think of spot zoning in relation to equal protection rights. During the
July Planning Commission hearing, no one complained that amending the zoning will discriminate against any specific property owner within the IG Zoning District. In response to concerns, the Planning Commission
recommended removal of the separation requirement, but the Council wanted the requirement. The City Attorney opined at that time that the Council could include a distance requirement and wanted public benefit findings
incorporated into the resolution.
Chair Weigand closed the public hearing.
In answer to Secretary Kleiman's query, Associate Planner Crager indicated the business could revert to the original use of processing wine with some amount of tasting, but Orange Coast Winery does not wish to operate as a food processing use.
Secretary Kleiman noted the Council was not unified in a vision for the property. Commissioners do not want to drive the business out of Newport Beach. Over the past two years, the operator has had more than its fair share of due
process and ample opportunity to make a different business decision. Amending the Zoning Code for one business feels like spot zoning. Changing the zoning for the whole area warrants more thought and a much more comprehensive review. This area has been targeted for potential development of housing and is ripe for redevelopment. Business owners in the area have indicated a wine tasting room is out of place in the IG Zoning
District. Alcohol service without food is always a problem. Under normal circumstances, children are typically at school at 4 p.m. for afterschool activities. A closing time of 11 p.m. does not make sense. Mr. Greer's letter overstates the staff report. If the General Plan Update process was not underway, considering the proposed ordinance would be appropriate.
Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2020
6 of 8
Commissioner Ellmore indicated the Planning Commission is reviewing the proposed ordinance a second time due to the Council including the separations and the City Attorney wanting findings for a public benefit.
Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Vice Chair Lowrey to approve the staff recommendation as presented. AYES: Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Koetting NOES: Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Rosene
RECUSED: ABSENT: In reply to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported a wine
tasting room could be proposed in any commercial zone that allows eating and drinking establishments with a minor use permit or a conditional use permit.
ITEM NO. 4 ELIMINATION OF AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019-184) Site Location: Citywide Summary:
Amendments to General Plan Policy NR21.2, Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.4-4, and Sections 20.42.140 of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and 21.30.065 of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to eliminate the existing amortization period for nonconforming signs, which currently requires all nonconforming signs to be removed by October 27, 2020. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1) due to the fact it relates to an amendment to the Local Coastal Program;
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-042, recommending the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-005 and Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 to remove an amortization period
for nonconforming signs; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-043, recommending the City Council adopt Coastal Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal Commission.
Principal Planner Matt Schneider reported in October 2005, the Council updated sign regulations such that
approximately 400 signs were deemed legal nonconforming and wanted nonconforming signs updated or removed within 15 years. In October 2019, the Council directed staff to consider extending the amortization period by three
to five years due to a concern about the sufficiency of constructive noticing to sign owners. In May 2020, the Planning Commission recommended the Council eliminate the amortization period. In July 2020, the Council concurred with
the Planning Commission's recommendation and initiated General Plan and Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments to address references to the policy. In addition, the Council directed staff not to enforce the abatement
period until the Council takes final action.
Principal Planner Schneider went on to report the proposed amendments eliminate the references to the abatement. If approved, the amendments will allow legal nonconforming signs to remain in place. However, remodeling or
replacing a sign will require the new sign to comply with current standards. In March 2020, staff mailed notice to sign owners subject to the abatement process. For the Planning Commission hearing, staff published a notice in the
Daily Pilot, posted notice to the City website, and mailed notice to impacted property and business owners. The notice period for SB 18 tribal consultation expired on October 27, 2020 with no requests for consultation.
Commissioners Rosene, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Koetting, and Ellmore, Vice Chair Lowrey, and Chair Weigand
disclosed no ex parte communications.
Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2020
7 of 8
Chair Weigand opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher suggested the Planning Commission consider revising the proposed LCP amendment regarding implementation of programs to remove illegal signs because the amendment will eliminate the only program. With these changes, heritage signs will be no different from other signs. Deputy Director Campbell advised that the program to remove nonconforming signs is located in Section 20.42.140 of the Zoning Code. The LCP never contained a similar program. The policy could be removed from the LCP.
Chair Weigand closed the public hearing. In answer to Commissioner Koetting's queries, Deputy Director Campbell indicated illegal signs may be removed
through code enforcement procedures. A nonconforming sign can be replaced with a conforming sign only. Nonconforming signs are being removed through attrition and after deterioration. Staff applies requirements to
signage on a case-by-case basis. The heritage sign program was established in 2005. The fish sign at the Crab Cooker has received heritage status and is no longer considered a nonconforming roof sign. Commissioner Koetting wanted to remove any potential loopholes that allow illegal signs to remain.
In response to Commissioner Ellmore's inquiries, Deputy Director Campbell related that banner signs are regulated
by the Zoning Code. During COVID-19, staff has been issuing emergency temporary use permits for banners. Ordinarily, a banner may be displayed four times a year for a total of 60 days per year.
Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis reported the banner program typically allows a banner to remain
in place for 60 to 90 days. The Council adopted an emergency ordinance that authorizes staff to grant permits for banners to remain in place for an extended time period as a way to assist businesses.
Chair Weigand suggested staff market the heritage sign program more widely.
Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to approve the staff
recommendation.
AYES: Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene NOES:
RECUSED: ABSENT:
IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 6 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported staff conducted two virtual housing workshops on Monday and Tuesday with 40 to 50 people attending. A virtual workshop for the Circulation Element is scheduled for November 23, 2020. Approximately 30 people have registered for the workshop. The agenda for the December 3, 2020, Planning Commission meeting includes the short-term lodging ordinance. The Airport Land Use Commission found the Residences at 4400 Von Karman project consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan and that will be presented to the Council in January 2021.
In response to Chair Weigand's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the Airport Land Use Commission found the Uptown Newport project inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B57AA94-8697-4B31-99C0-2460B7F20563