Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/1988COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES A G� PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: April 21, 1988 s ` 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of April 7. 1988— of 4 -7 -88 Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the April 7, * * * * * * 1988, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. �in * Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the A eg nda: Posting of the Agenda James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday; April 15, 1988, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuance: Request for Continuance James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff has requested that Item No. 2, Variance No. 1144, applicant, regarding the construction of a second floor restaurant storage area over the existing Crab Cooker Restaurant located at 2200 Newport Boulevard, be removed from calendar so as to allow additional time for the staff and the applicant to discuss alternatives for the proposed project. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ym 0 9 9 April 21, 1988 G9 9 N�y�f C yo � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MULL INDEX _R Motion * Motion was made and voted on to remove Item No, 2, All Ayes Variance No. 1144, from calendar. MOTION CARRIED. Modification No. 3381 (Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to permit the retention of an as -built 6 foot Mod. NO.' high wrought iron fence (and 10# feet of netting on top 3381 of said fence) on the Sporting House Athletic Club property, which encroaches 20± feet into the required 30 Denied foot landscaped setback adjacent to Jamboree Road and the retention of three as -built volleyball courts which encroach 10± feet into said landscaped setback. LOCATION: Lot 2, Tract No. 7694, located at 3601 Jamboree Road, on the northeasterly corner of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Ray Cuddy, Newport Beach OWNERS: E. Baker, R. Cuddy and E. Schechter, La Jolla. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jim Okuley, attorney for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Okuley stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Okuley stated that the 30 foot setback adjacent to Jamboree Road maintains a landscape appearance for the site, and that the fence and volleyball courts do not obstruct a view. Commissioner Debay referred to a letter from Beach Imports addressed to the Planning Commission, dated April 21, 1988, which states that the encroachment blocks their automobile displays and signs, and because they were not allowed to build into the 30 foot setback that it would be unfair to permit the subject encroachment to remain. Mr. Okuley replied that their view could not be obstructed because the setback comprises only of a wrought iron fence and landscaping that have been on the site for many years. Mr. Okuley rebuked that an automobile display should not be compared to landscaping consisting of grass, sand, and rock. 2 COMMISSIONERS .p •p_ �j�¢ Or �t� _ 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 RZMALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Okuley replied that if the applicant would be required to revert back to two volleyball courts, there would be a financial hardship to the applicant inasmuch as the applicant acquired the Sporting House Athletic Club in its existing condition, and that said facility attracts nationally acclaimed volleyball players who bring in numerous other volleyball players. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that if the previous owner of the subject facility failed to disclose that he had illegally encroached into the setback area that it should be his financial obligation instead of the applicants to restore the site back to two volleyball courts. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the volleyball games could be scheduled so as to accommodate all of the week -end volleyball players. Mr. Okuley replied that if the applicant were required to, go through the legal system to be reimbursed by the previous owners, there would be time and financial hardships to the applicant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Okuley replied that his statement regarding a lawsuit was a supposition based on his prior knowledge of his previous experiences with the previous owners. Mr. Okuley stated that the third volleyball court is required for sand volleyball tournaments and for the television promotion of sand volleyball. In response to Commissioner Koppelman's statement regarding the City's intent to maintain a 30 foot wide landscaped setback adjacent to Jamboree Road, and what should be allowed in said setback, Mr. Okuley responded that aesthetically there is a difference between the subject facility's encroached landscaped area and the adjacent automobile dealership. In response to Mr. Okuley's comment regarding The Koll Company's encroachment of off - street parking lots into the required 30 foot setback adjacent to Birch Street,, Mr. Hewicker explained that The Koll Company applied for and was approved a Modification to encroach into the said setback. In response to Commissioner Debay's reference to the drawing that was submitted by the applicant, Mr. Okuley replied that the applicant could move the fence to where the retaining wall currently is located. He stated that • the purpose for the fence is to protect the pool, and to restrict the public from entering and exiting the facility. -3- COMMISSIONERS vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX In response to Commissioner Winburn's reference to Exhibit "B" to permit a ten foot encroachment near the volleyball courts and to relocate the fence, Mr. Okuley replied that if the fence were moved back to maintain a 20 foot setback adjacent to Jamboree Road, the remaining 10 feet of required landscaping would consist of sand on the volleyball courts. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to deny Modification No. 3381 subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit "C ". Commissioner Ayes * * e r * * Merrill stated that instead of a new property or No * business owner coming to the City to rectify a previous owner's mistake, the new owner should investigate the property or business prior to purchasing the property. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That in this case, the proposal would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the applicant's request would not be consistent with the legislative intent of TItle 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the approval of the 20± foot fence and net encroachment and 10± feet volleyball court encroachment could set a precedent for the approval of other similar requests which could be detrimental to the Newport Place Planned Community, inasmuch as the adjoining property owner has already indicted his desire to encroach similarly, if permitted. • -4- COMMISSIONERS �� 0 �G �o�9i srzko yc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 RO ALL INDEX Variance No. 1144 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to permit the construction of a second floor restaurant storage area over the existing Crab Cooker Variance Restaurant located in the "Retail Service Commercial" No. 1144 area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area, so as to allow said structure to exceed the Removed fro: maximum allowable gross floor area of one times the site Calendar area. LOCATION: Lots 15 and 16, Block 222, Tract No. 814, located at 2200 Newport Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner of Newport Boulevard and 22nd Street, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Robert Roubian, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff has requested that the subject item be removed from calendar so as to allow staff and the applicant additional time to discuss alternatives for the proposed project. Mr. Robert Sanregret, attorney for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that the applicant agrees with staff's request to remove Variance No. 1144 from calendar with the understanding that the Variance may be put back on calendar with written notice of twelve days. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to remove Variance No. 1144 All Ayes from calendar. MOTION CARRIED. -5- COMMISSIONERS xNOy c4�� 9y - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 ROMFCALL INDEX A Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.3 TS Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of 120 unit elderly personal care facility UP3312 on property located in the P -C District. Continued AND to " 6 -9 -88 B Use Permit No. 3312 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a 120 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P -C District. The proposal also includes: a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District; a request to construct a flag pole on top of the structure which exceeds 50 feet in height; a request to establish an off - street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full time valet parking service. • LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 85 -257 (Resubdivision No. 811), located at 3901 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Emerald Associates, Newport Beach. OWNER: A.T. Leo's Inc., Irvine James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the staff report addendum distributed to the Planning Commission regarding the Floor Area Ratios of previous projects approved in Corona del Mar, and to the Memorandum addressed to the Planning Commission from the City Attorney's Office dated April 21, 1988, in response to a letter from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, attorneys at law, dated April 15, 1988, Mr. Hewicker acknowledged the letters of opposition to the proposed project received by staff from the residents of Corona del Mar, and he requested that said residents inform staff what they would propose as an alternative to the site inasmuch as staff is preparing a review of the General Plan. -6- COMMISSIONERS Zm ��m���AA 9�m9i ` 11171po CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 RO CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hewicker replied that P -C zoning will only permit this type of project on the subject site. Commissioner Koppelman and Mr. Hewicker discussed the General Plan up -date that will be heard by the Planning Commission this summer, and the procedures required to make the zoning internally consistent with the Land Use Element. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, responded to the legal issues that have been raised by the opposition to the proposed project as follows: The Land Use Element contains building intensities or density standards for virtually all property within the City, and it is staff's position that the Land Use Element is not rendered legally inadequate because one or two parcels do not have the specific intensity limits. The Circulation Element satisfies State Law and it was the product of the "state of the art" transportation studies. The Circulation Element insures that roadways within the City are adequate to accommodate traffic generated by development only authorized in the City, and if there are regional traffic implications or problems generated by development outside of the City, that does not make a Circulation Element legally inadequate. In reference to the General Plan inadequacies relating to a use permit concerning a specific project on a specific site, Ms. Korade explained that the use permit can be invalidated only where there is a connection between a defect in the General Plan and the use permit. Ms. Korade explained that it is staff's position that the proposed project's Floor Area Ratio would not serve any real purpose because of the diverse nature of the senior housing project and the single use allowed by the project. Ms. Korade stated that the Planning staff has concluded that there is no significant adverse impact on the environment; however, she said that the Planning Commission could reject the Negative Declaration or require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). She explained that the facts determining that there were no significant adverse impacts, is based on a determination that there has been no change in environmental -7- COMMISSIONERS �p A 9 9X Ash CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 ROMEALL INDEX conditions that warrant a conclusion different from that reached with respect to the prior project. This determination was supported by a traffic study. Ms. Korade addressed the following environmental concerns: 1. Growth - inducing /cumulative effects. This project is more like a residential use than a commercial project. That approval of 1.0 Floor Area Ratio for the senior housing project use would not set a precedent for commercial sites in Corona del Mar. 2. Buck Gully. The impact of the project on Buck Gully has been evaluated in comparison to existing conditions, and the mitigation measures will reduce all potential impacts on Buck Gully to a level of insignificance. 3. Traffic and parking. That traffic generation figures utilized for this project are accurate; however, restrictions against automobile owners may not be valid and they may be difficult to enforce. In conclusion, Ms. Korade stated that the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan are legally defensible. She said that the size and bulk of the proposed project may form a basis for denial of the project for planning reasons, or if the Planning Commission believes that the factors are related to the absence of a specific Floor Area Ratio for the site: Ms. Korade advised that the decision to prepare a Negative Declaration was correct; however, the Planning Commission may require an EIR if the evidence made at or before the public hearing would support the argument that the project could have a substantial adverse affect on the environment. Commissioner Koppelman questioned the adoption of a legally adequate Circulation Element that addresses circulation within the City when dealing with parcels of property that have no intensity of development specified? Ms. Korade responded that adequacy of the Circulation Element is then needed to address the circulation and the proposed traffic which could be generated if the City were built out to its maximum. She referred to the traffic studies that were conducted by a Traffic Consulting firm taking the Land Use designation into consideration in the City, and generated traffic models which would envision the build - out of the City and whether the roadways are sufficient to handle same. 8- COMMISSIONERS \1\\ Agah G9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 R01WALL INDEX Commissioner Koppelman asked if no intensity of development was on a project, how is the traffic projected into a model to determine how many automobiles the project would produce? Mr. Hewicker replied that he was not certain if a model was used when the Traffic Study was conducted on the proposed project. He explained that at the time of the early adoption of the Circulation Element, the subject property had a mix of commercial and residential zoning on the property. He said that the projects concerning senior citizen facilities proposed on the subject site over the past few years have had substantially less impacts than the traffic generated characteristics on any project that has been previously considered. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff is not anticipating any development on the subject property which exceeds the intensity of development of any other parcels in Corona del Mar. Commissioner Koppelman commented that the traffic is factored in at a higher traffic ratio than the proposed project. Mr. Hewicker commented that the traffic model considers what is being developed in the area. • Commissioner Pomeroy discussed with staff the Traffic Study, the affect of the traffic impacts from outside of the City and how said traffic is measured within the City. Ms. Korade stated that a legally adequate Circulation Element does not mean that the Planning Commission is bound to find that the traffic generated is acceptable or the traffic generated satisfies the Traffic Phasing Ordinance or that the traffic generated should not be mitigated or analyzed in the EIR, and that the Circulation Element is only referring to the legal standards of the Circulation Element. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. Jon Christeson, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Christeson addressed the following. concerns expressed by persons opposing the project: that they are not building the project into Buck Gully; that they are not building 5 stories above grade; and that they are not increasing traffic on East Coast Highway. Mr. Christeson referred to his background as a local resident of Corona del Mar, and he said that members of his family have needed to move outside of Newport Beach because there was not a similar facility available to them. He referred to Use Permit No. 3155, a request to develop a similar senior facility on the subject property and to Chairman Pers6n's and -9- COMMISSIONERS yd� �9a�99'oA 9 m91. py9 Cy (` \Vlp . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 ROL ALL INDEX Commissioner Koppelman's statements during the December 10, 1987 and October 10, 1985, public hearings concerning Floor Area Ratio. Mr. Christeson stated that "residential care" as proposed for the senior housing facility falls between congregate care and nursing care, and meets the needs of the largest segment of the senior citizen market. He explained that the typical resident is about 83 years old, a widow, her health is an on- going concern but she is ambulatory, that there is a modest amount of physical impairment, and she remains an independent member of the community. Mr. Christeson commented that there are 10,000 senior citizens in Newport Beach divided between the age groups of 65 years to 75 years, and the over 75 age group. Mr. Christeson referred to the original plans that were reviewed by the City staff and members of the community, and that because mistakes were made in the original plans, the applicant revised and submitted new plans to the City staff and to the members of the community. He commented that the plans were well received by everyone. • Mr. Ghristeson stated that the opponents to the project have been referring to the original design which has placed a negative impact on the project. Mr. Christeson stated that the revised plan includes removing the building from Buck Gully, that the structure has been moved entirely behind the existing fence on the property, the average rear yard setback is about 80 feet, the average height was reduced to 30 feet including one section of 150 feet that runs along East Coast Highway that was reduced to 36 feet. He stated that the structure was lowered 1 -1/2 floors into the site so that the portions of the structure would not be visible from most vantage points, the visible portion of the building represents a Floor Area Ratio of .67, that 10 units were removed which lowered the square footage to 66,000 square feet or a total Floor Area Ratio of .99, creating a front yard that averages 120 feet by 160 feet, the front yard is 22,000 square feet or one -third of the site, and the total open space is 57 percent, not counting the driveway, or 70 percent of open space including the driveway. Mr. Christeson stated that because the facility will be for personal care residents who will be prohibited from driving, the traffic counts projected by the City's • Traffic Engineer.and the "U" turns at Seaward Road will be reduced considerably. He stated that the total trips generated by the existing uses are 670 trips daily, and -10- COMMISSIONERS 4A 7j .pGiC� Ahvy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX the proposed generated trips for the subject facility are 338 trips daily. In reference to concerns regarding on -site parking, Mr. Christeson stated that surveys of similar facilities have shown that similar facilities provide for 1.4 parking spaces per bed to .11 and .12 parking space per unit. He commented that the Emerald Village parking lot will provide a total of 40 parking spaces that will include 18 parking spaces for the residents. He commented that a staff of 40 employees will arrive in three different shifts including 20 employees during the peak hours, and that the kitchen and housekeeping employees are projected to arrive on the bus that will stop at The Five Crowns Restaurant. In reference to concerns that have been expressed regarding safety, Mr. Christeson stated that the proposed project will be surrounded by a fence with a three foot base of masonry and 2 feet to 3 feet of wrought iron similar to an English country garden, which is the theme of the landscaping in the courtyards. He stated that the residents must pass by the front desk to • exit the grounds, and the desk will be staffed by two to four persons, 24 hours a day. Mr. Christeson advised that the facility will not be licensed for Alzheimer patients, and that the residents will be ambulatory so they will be able to walk without incident. Mr. Christeson referred to the concerns expressed regarding the proposed Floor Area Ratio, and he compared the proposed residential project to commercial structures in Corona del Mar and to communities similar to Corona del Mar along the California coastline. He stated that the average Floor Area Ratio in Corona del Mar is 1.5 including residential and commercial, and the proposed project has a .99 Floor Area Ratio. Mr. Christeson stated that the proposed structure will not be constructed five stories. He stated that more than 80 percent of the building averages 30 feet, 17 percent of the elevation averages 2 feet 6 inches under the base height, and, the entire structure is under 50 feet. He explained that from East Coast Highway the structure is visually 2 and 3 stories, although there are 4 story wings which are either concealed in the roof or in the basement level. Mr. Christeson stated that the applicants' goal is to • house 120 Corona del Mar neighbors in their own community. He pointed out that the applicants could redesign the roof if the proposed roof is offensive; -11- COMMISSIONERS ymGX I9`XO _ 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 RO ALL INDEX that if the structure'is built lower than the adjacent Five Crowns Restaurant there should be no grounds for disapproval; and he described how he could redesign the structure so that Emerald Village would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Pers6n and Commissioner Koppelman discussed with Mr. Christeson statements that he had quoted from them during the foregoing public hearings regarding suggested Floor Area Ratio for the subject site. Ms. Karen Ferri, Director of Operations of IPM, the management company and subsidiary of TransAmerica, who manage and operate only retirement property, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Ms. Ferri explained that her experience has been that none of the residents who reside at any of their similar facilities drives their own automobile. She stated that there is no mandate or rules to say that no one is allowed to have their own automobile. Ms. Ferri explained that the residents do not need to provide transportation because • the facility provides transportation for the residents. In response to numerous questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Christeson and Ms. Ferri replied that the valet parking will be provided just for the visitors; that the residents will be informed that they are not permitted to have automobiles on the site and if they insist, then family members will be called; that the proposed rental fee will be in proportion to the geographic area such as the management company has applied in other locations; and the proposed Danville facility will be comparable to the subject facility. Commissioner Winburn referred to the Sunridge facility at Regent's Point in Irvine, and she stated that there are 58 residents in the personal care facility. She discussed the facility's employee shifts, the number of employees needed for the 58 residents, that two of said residents have automobiles on -site, the type of transportation used by the employees, and she concluded that the proposed facility may require more employees than the number suggested by the applicant. Ms. Ferri explained employee responsibilities, why there will not be as many employees required at the subject facility as at the Sunridge facility, and the hours that will be • staggered and overlapped shifts. -12- COMMISSIONERS G NO yi�yh CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 RO ALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the four facilities managed by the IPM Management Company, and asked for comparisons of the proposed studio unit at the subject facility. Ms. Ferri replied that the highest rent for a 325 square foot unit is $1,600.00, and the lowest rent is $1,325.00. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the proposed rent for the subject facility is $2,300.00. Commissioner Winburn stated that Sunridge at Regent's Point, which would be the most comparable to the subject facility because of the geographic area, the monthly fee is $2,270.00 per month, or the resident may deposit $29,000.00 over a period of 5 years, or $6,000.00 a year, and the maintenance fee is $1,750.00 per month. Commissioner Debay commented that CalTrans has stated that people of higher income are more likely to be driving in more advanced years than people with lower income. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding a Floor Area Ratio reduction, Mr. Christeson explained that if all of the corridors and lobbies would be eliminated in Wing "C" and 6 units were moved, that the building would be reduced by about 1,000 square feet, or a reduction of about 1 -1/2 percent. Chairman Pers6n stated that the three elements causing the main concern are height, bulk, and density. Mr. Christeson commented that the roof could be redesigned' And the height could be reduced so as to be comparable with The Five Crowns Restaurant. . In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding transportation and emergency equipment, Mr. Christeson and Ms. Ferri replied that the facility will provide a van and a private automobile for the residents; that the employees are licensed through the Department of Social Service Community Care and they are capable of minor medical treatment or to monitor treatment until the paramedics arrive at the site; that an employee must make a judgement call if an ambulance should be called to the facility; and Ms. Ferri stated that she did not know what the travel time was from the subject site to the hospital. . The Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and • reconvened at 9:10 p.m. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Ms. Ferri replied that the four facilities operated by -13- COMMISSIONERS ym Q0A 9�m9< G9y� Gy C� ro CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 R ALL INDEX her management company are located in Orangeville, Antioch, Dixon, and Vallejo; that traffic and parking were important issues before the facilities were built because the residential care unit was a new concept to the communities; that the proposed facility in Danville is located on a site that is adjacent to heavy traffic comparable to East Coast Highway; that the Diablo facility is located the farthest from a hospital which is six to eight miles away; and that the staff is required to have current first aid training so that each staff member may assist in minor medical treatment. Mr. Christeson stated that the applicants did not prepare or hire the Traffic Engineer who provided the Traffic Study. Me commented that Villa West which is a senior citizen facility, currently has 11 automobiles in the parking lot. Mr. Kermit Dorius, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorius explained that the proposed project was designed so as to blend in aesthetically with Corona del Mar. Chairman Pers6n asked that if the project were redrawn if there could be a decrease in the bulk and to provide more parking all at the same time? Mr. Dorius explained that there may have to be a sacrifice of open space and to the front yard setback so as to allow for the same number of beds. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Dorius replied that only sketches of the units are available. He explained that the choice of two plans consists of a 15 foot by 20 foot studio unit including bath and combination living room and bedroom, and the 20 foot by 20 foot junior one bedroom includes a bathroom and a living room. Mr. Dorius stated that 90 percent of the units are occupied by a single person. Mr. Len Seltzer, 519 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission as Chairman of the Neighbors to Preserve Corona del Mar that was formed to oppose the subject project. Mr. Seltzer presented their concerns as follows: that this is a commercial project; that the mass structure would not be appropriate for the site; that the structure would be too tall and too intense; does not fit in with the village atmosphere of Corona del Mar; inadequate parking; would generate traffic; poses a safety threat to the senior residents; the proximity to Buck Cully is unacceptable; it evades an -14- COMMISSIONERS NO� B ?9.09 G9y��pZ9� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 RO ALL INDEX EIR; avoids being a part of the General Plan Review process; a portion of the project will be on fill ground; and it serves as a precedent for increased density and height throughout Corona del Mar. He requested that the Planning Commission digest the substantial planning and legal problems rising from the project, to either deny the project now or continue the item so that it could be examined by the General Plan Review process and be assigned an appropriate density at a later date. Mr. Bill de Mayo, 519 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the project because the massive structure does not blend in with the village atmosphere of Corona del Mar; that the structure would set a precedent for high density projects; there are traffic and parking problems existing on Hazel Drive and East Coast Highway; and he had concerns for the safety of the senior residents crossing East Coast Highway on foot. Mr. de Mayo questioned the number of parking spaces that would be available to the employees during shift changes, that the residents will attract a large • number of visitors, and there may be residents who will want to keep a car on the premises for availability even if they do not drive. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. de Mayo replied that he does not have an objection to a senior housing facility; however, the structure is about twice the size of what he would consider acceptable. Mrs. Sally Peterson, 249 Evening Canyon Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the project. Her primary concern was that it would be dangerous for the residents to walk in the area. She stated that there are no sidewalks south of the facility so the residents would have to walk on East Coast Highway, that the only traffic signal that they could use to cross East Coast Highway would be on Poppy Street, and she had concerns regarding emergency vehicle access to the facility. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mrs. Peterson replied that she could not recommend another use for the project, but that maybe condominiums would be acceptable. Mr. Oakley Frost, 416 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission as a member of the steering committee to oppose the proposed project. Mr. Frost and • Ms. Korade discussed the City Attorney's Office response to Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger's letter dated April 15, 1988, as previously presented by Ms. Korade. Mr. Frost -15- COMMISSIONERS _ q2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 R ALL INDEX addressed the use permit vs. General Plan process to . designate density for specific sites; that the Planning Commission should consider all possible uses for the subject site through an EIR in connection with the General Plan update; that the Planning Commission should consider alternate sites for a senior citizen project; what happens to the structure if the proposed project is not financially or operationally successful because there are not many alternative uses for the building; and he emphasized that economics of the project should be a primary consideration of the Planning Commission. In response to a request by Chairman Pers6n, Ms. Korade explained that the Planning Commission only applies the rules regulating the General Plan and zoning of the City and that the Planning Commission does not have any authority to analyze the economics of a project. Chairman Pers6n commented that does not mean that the Planning Commission is not interested in the economics of the project. Commissioner Debay commented that the present zoning precludes any other use for the proposed building, and that another use on the property would have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Ron Centre, 405 Columbus Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his concerns regarding the potential loss of residential property values, traffic, and how difficult it is for a senior citizen to give up an automobile even if the automobile is parked. Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the proposed project as follows: that the property should be considered commercial; that 15 feet separates the proposed four story building to the adjacent residential property; that approximately one -half of the proposed building is above the 32 foot ridge height; that the difference between congregate care and personal care is subjective; he compared the foregoing use permit regarding senior housing that was denied by the Planning Commission. and approved by the City Council; he questioned the number of employees that would serve 120 residents; that the project would be constructed on fill land; he defined how the subject building could be considered a 5 or 6 story building if Buck Cully is taken into consideration; that there is no difference between the revised plan and the original plan; the density of the project; that the employees will park off -site; and he concluded that the reality of the project will adversely affect the residents. -16- COMMISSIONERS �A ;0�0 ooNO�^m G� �p9� � y�y` y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 RO ALL INDEX Mrs. Jean Watt, 4 Harbor Island, appeared before the Planning Commission representing SPON, and she referred to the foregoing letter from Shute, Mihaley, & Weinberger dated April 15, 1988. She stated the following concerns: that the proposed project would be a large project "crammed" onto a small site in a very special neighborhood; that the financial aspects of the development should be considered; the mobility of the residents and emergency equipment; that a 1.5 Floor Area Ratio residential neighborhood should not be equated to a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio congregate care facility; that large scale commercial buildings are crowding residential suburban neighborhoods; and the Planning Commission should consider the General Plan Review and EIR to achieve zoning that will stand the test of time; and that will be consistent with the site. Mr. Don Ghristeson, 1501 Sabrina Terrace, applicant and contractor, appeared before the Planning Commission. In rebuttal to previous testimony, Mr. Christeson stated that most of Corona del. Mar is on fill land; the • applicants are concerned about the community; that 10,000 senior citizens reside in Newport Beach who could qualify for the facility; condominiums could mean children, pets and more automobiles on the site; that the residents may want to drive but because of a physical impairment they are not capable of driving an automobile; that 20 employees will be on duty during a peak shift; and that one -half of the employees will arrive at the facility on the bus. Mr. Walter Ziglar, 327 Poppy Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed project. He stated his concerns regarding the lack of parking for local residents on Poppy Avenue and Hazel Drive; that the ratio of 120 units to 40 parking spaces is not adequate and he compared the proposed facility with the Mesa Verde Senior facility's current parking need; and that the kitchen employees at Five Crowns Restaurant drive their own automobiles and park on the residential streets. Mr. Ran Newcomb, 3 Sandbar, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the project. He stated that he had heard only negative comments concerning the project during a local SPON meeting; that the traffic generated would be reduced by half; that the zoning is the highest and best use; that there does not appear to be a view obstruction to anyone; that there would be no fill; he would have to agree with the Traffic Engineers' opinion -17- COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 RZ CALL INDEX regarding required parking; that the majority of the residents would be over 70 years old; that the bright lights would be controlled; that the subject site needs a good looking project; and he concluded that the setback design should not be objectionable. Mr. Steve Prough, 527 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Prough recommended an EIR and General Plan Review for the subject site that would include overall development of Corona del Mar; the project would not be economically feasible unless the applicant develops the number of units requested; that a General Plan would consider the highest and best use for the site; that he may be in support of the project if the height would be lowered; if the project should fail what would occur; and the applicant should provide an interior design and how the facility could be converted from its current use. Mr. Cared Smith, 424 Rivera Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that from his experience • as an architect which has included numerous multiple residential units, that the residents have a viable concern regarding the future of the proposed building if it should not be economically successful. He supported the use for the site, the architectural characteristics, and the proposed landscaping. He had concerns regarding the setback adjacent to Hazel Drive and the southerly property line because no area is planned for landscaping; that the parking plan does not show any columns which will reduce the parking widths; the applicant is requesting a residential use with a commercial setback; the parking structure grade is proposed to be below Hazel Drive; and he stated his concern regarding the 8 foot hole; there is no elevation on the plan to show what the building is going to look like along Hazel Drive or the southerly portion of the site; the units that will be looking out at masonry walls; 8 feet is provided for a fire access; and the height of the building from the terrace level is 60 feet and six stories. He stated that the Planning Commission will be able to put conditions on the project concerning architecture, landscaping, and underground utilities. Commissioner Debay complimented Mr. Smith on his letter that he had previously submitted to the Planning Commission regarding the project. • Mr. Don Jacobs, 309 Poppy Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the project. He stated that the project will be locally owned and is -18- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y,0 .per �� fo ON Fm dG yN 9���vy 9c April 21, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH y ROMMALL INDEX designed by local residents; the project fits in architecturally with the neighborhood; it provides views of the ocean and is within walking distance of the stores; the residents would be able to walk on Poppy Street to Ocean Boulevard; that the present site consists of an unsightly building; and that the proposed project is an opportunity to provide an asset to the community providing an important facility. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:20 p.m. and reconvened at 10:30 p.m. Mr. George Thagard, 4545 Gorham Drive, representing the Cameo Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission to support the project. He stated that the project would satisfy the community; it is a permanent residential -type facility, not a high traffic generator; it is not loud; it would fit in with the community; it would be a good buffer between the commercial area: and the residential. area; that the development would be an added landmark; that the current site has gone from bad to worse; and that an EIR would show that the natural habitat would return to the area after the reconstruction. Mr. Dan Wiseman, 336 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the project. He stated that he is concerned about the density, height, parking, and the environment of Buck Gully. He stated that from his house he will be looking at the full six stories of the proposed project; that the natural habitat may not return after the project has been developed; that the applicants should contact The Irvine Company to develop the project in the Downcoast area; that there would be a more suitable project in the future; that the project would impact the village atmosphere; that the financial feasibility is important; and that the employees from The Five Crowns Restaurant park on the local residential streets. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman asking what he would build on the site inasmuch as he is a builder. Mr. Wiseman replied that he had not taken the site into consideration but that maybe a nice quaint commercial use with English roofs would be appropriate. Ms. Wendy Crimp, Seaward Road, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed project. • She approved the architecture and landscaping, and she stated that the current building is an eyesore. As a registered nurse at a local hospital, Ms. Crimp -19- COMMISSIONERS A 9ti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 RO ALL INDEX emphasized the need for this type of facility so that the local residents would be able to remain in the community, and that they would continue to have an ocean view. Mr. Phillip de Carion,' 2524. Ocean Boulevard, property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. de Carion stated that he is very concerned about the best use and what would be acceptable to the neighborhood for the subject property. He stated that the subject facility would be the most appropriate, and the applicants are local and respond to the concerns of the community. Mr. de Carion commented that the current .structure on the subject property needs to be improved. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. de Carion stated that the property owners will not be making a profit on the sale of the property after 10 years of improvements. Mr. Al Mayo, A. T. Leo's Restaurant and property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of • the project, and confirmed that the property owners would not be making a profit on the sale of the property. He supports the applicants because they are local residents, and he questioned what types of uses would be suggested for the property after the General Plan Review. Mr. Bill Todd, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Todd stated that the applicants attempted to address the concerns of the local residents and the Planning Commission. He addressed the parking study that was done for the site; the applicants meeting with Chairman Pers6n and Commissioner Winburn regarding what they thought may be acceptable on the site; and the compromises that the applicants made to appease the residents and the Planning Commission. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Todd stated that the original plans were shown to the Planning staff and to a group of residents including Mr. Dick Nichols. Mr. Todd commented that the applicants recently met with their professional advisers so as to provide a building that would be aesthetically pleasing, including a modified roof style and reducing the height of the building. Mr. Todd stated that the economics for the project are "tight ". He said that there is a wealthy resident, a British Trust Company, and a major health • care financier that are interested in financing the project. He stated that if the Floor Area Ratio would be reduced to .8 no one would see the difference but it -20- COMMISSIONERS tiA mG 9 y mQ y � � AC y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 R ALL INDEX would ruin the economics of the project. Mr. Todd emphasized that Old Corona del Mar is the only area in Newport Beach that has a specific residential Floor Area Ratio of 1.5. He suggested modifications to the plan that could reduce the Floor Area Ratio, and he referred to residences on Poppy Avenue and Hazel Drive that are three stories above parking. Mr. Todd emphasized that the developers must deal with the facts. In response to Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Todd commented that the site should not be considered a commercial site. Mr. John Rabun, 419 Poppy Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his concerns regarding the propose size of the structure, the parking, and safety for the residents. Mrs. Carol Frost, 416 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the proposed project. Mrs. Frost compared the proposed project to the size of The Five Crowns Restaurant, and she concluded that said restaurant would be minute compared to the proposed project. She questioned the Cameo Community Association's support of the proposed project and if the homeowners concurred with the Association's approval of the project; she referred to the proposed development of the Downcoast area and what the aesthetics would be upon entering Corona del Mar; she questioned if 70 percent of the open space that the developers do not intend to develop includes Buck Cully inasmuch as no one develops said gully even though they may own the property. In response to numerous questions posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mrs. Frost replied that she would like to see a park, a church, or three residential homes on the site; and that she does not believe that the project will be financially feasible for the developers. Scott C'entra, 620 Jasmine Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the project because it would not fit in with the village atmosphere; traffic; access for emergency vehicles; Corona del Mar is a tourist attraction and the site should have something creative on it; and the parking is becoming more prohibitive for the residents in the area. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, 550 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to request an EIR so that concerns regarding land fill could be addressed. In response to • a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Kennedy stated that he would agree with any use on the site if the project meets all of the requirements for the property, -21- COMMISSIONERS _ Gay ��y9Cf �yo .c y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 ROL ALL INDEX and he stated that there are questions that remain unanswered. Mr. Hewicker responded to Mr. Kennedy's concern regarding land fill, and he stated that the height of any new structure on the subject site can be measured from the existing grade inasmuch as the grade was there when the height limits were established. Mr. Hewicker commented that if retaining walls or changing the grade of the property were being considered, then staff would measure the height of the new building from the previous existing grade. Mr. Kennedy commented on his concerns regarding impairment of views, and Chairman PersSn responded that the Planning Commission does not protect private views, only public views from public places. Commissioner Debay asked Mr. Kennedy if he had read the Initial Study and the Environmental Report for the previous project that was approved for the site, and what could be addressed in a new EIR that was not already addressed in the previous one? Mr. Kennedy replied that he had not read the reports. Mr. Jim Schindler, 409 Cabrillo Terrace, appeared before . the Planning Commission to oppose the proposed project because the project would not fit in aesthetically with the community; that to impede the residents' view of the ocean would be a disaster and would affect the property values; that a project that would add to the congestion on East Coast Highway and creates traffic safety hazards and parking problems should be opposed; precedent established by this project would destroy the character of Corona del Mar; and the project should not be located in an old established residential community. Mr. Jim Crane, 323 Driftwood Road, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his concerns regarding the length of time that it could take an emergency vehicle to go from the subject site to a hospital, and that many senior citizens just want to keep an automobile even if they do not drive. Mrs. Betty Felling, 309 Grand Canal., appeared before the Planning Commission to state that the Planning Commission should consider the cost of emergency services to the City that the facility will require; and the increased amount of water that will be used by the residents. Mr. Don Peterson, 249 Evening Canyon Road, appeared • before the Planning Commission to state that his concerns are the bulk; that to realize the economic feasibility of the project that there needs to be a high -22- COMMISSIONERS 'L \0J m 9 9 y ''' << \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX density; that a compromise should be considered between the developer and the property owner so that the density could be reduced considerably; that the residents will need to be selected to meet all of the requirements to live in the facility; that senior citizens do like to drive automobiles; and he stated his concerns regarding "U" turns at Seaward Drive or to drive through the Shorecliffs Community to approach the traffic signal at East Coast Highway and Morning Canyon Road. Mr. Jon Christeson reappeared before the Planning Commission in response to previous testimony as follows: emergency vehicle use will not dramatically increase; setbacks off of Hazel Drive average between 12 to 17 feet; landscaping can be planted on top of parking structures; legal threats - the applicants would prefer to work within the process established by the City; to establish a park the City would have to purchase the property, parking would have to be provided, there would be an increase in traffic, and children would be playing on the site; if a post office would be established on • the site there would be a heavy traffic impact; to use the 360 foot length of the property they have developed a long building; TransAmerica has never lost a project and they operate the facilities at about 99 percent full capacity so the facility should be on the site for many years; the applicants cannot be responsible for everyone that would make a "U" turn on Seaward Road, the project will not create additional automobile traffic on -site; and the applicants would cooperate with CalTrans if they wanted to make any intersection changes; that the roof heights conform with the City's regulations; that the residents will not be packed into the one bedroom units; that there is a distinct difference between congregate care and residential care; the land fill dates back to 1935 when much of Corona del Mar was developed; and that the six levels are not contiguous. Commissioner Debay suggested that the applicants could develop the project in increments so as to prove to the residents that the facility could be successful. Mr. Christeson replied that the applicants will pursue the facts from the Traffic Study that was done through the City to verify what was projected is correct. In response to Commissioner Pomeroy's request, Mr. Christeson described from the drawings how the • applicants could redraw the project so as to move 6 units from Wing "C "; to reduce the structure's height to comply with the height limit; and to modify the roof. -23- COMMISSIONERS Ask 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 RO ALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Christeson replied that if the project would be modified as stated, that the facility would remain at 120 units, and between 1,000 square feet to 1,200 square feet would be eliminated. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman and Commissioner Merrill regarding the setbacks along Hazel Drive and the fire access, Mr. Christeson described the setback distances between the proposed structure and the dwellings on Hazel Drive. Mr. Christeson advised Chairman Pers6n that he would be willing to redraw the plans if the Planning Commission could give the applicants' guidelines. Chairman Pers6n stated that he had a concern regarding the parking formula. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that three years ago he had An opportunity to process plans for a senior citizen facility that included congregate care, personal care, • and nursing care which prompted him to investigate thoroughly this type of a project. He confirmed Mr. Christeson's statements regarding parking inasmuch as the residents of congregate care had automobiles, but when they moved to a personal care unit they were willing to get rid of their automobiles and to change their lifestyle. He stated that the parking requirements for personal care were one -tenth of what . they were in the congregate care facility. He suggested that the residents opposing the project take advantage of technical information that is available to understand the lifestyle, and he suggested the University of Southern California Geriatrics Study Group. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he does not question the parking formula, the traffic would be less than the current permitted use, and he commented that it appears that there are residents who do not want the proposed project on the site. Commissioner Koppelman stated that her concerns are to keep the special community character of Corona del Mar, and to reduce the.bulk of the project specifically off of Buck Gully. Commissioner Di Sano addressed the sensitivity that the • applicants have for the project on the proposed site; that there is a need for a senior citizen facility somewhere in Newpokt Beach; and he suggested that the -24- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ymG c^yNyy o9 April 21, 1988 p9 oy� �yo y ` z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R ALL INDEX applicant return with a redrawing of the project. Commissioner Debay stated that as a registered nurse, she is aware of the need for a personal care facility, and that she would like to see the project work. She requested that the applicants reduce the project, and to go: back and review the financial feasibility to see if there would be a way to decrease the density further so that the Planning Commission would know that the neighbors' concerns are being considered. Commissioner Winburn questioned the number of employees that the applicants have considered during the peak shift hours, and where, if needed, the additional employees would park their automobiles. She commented that personal care residents do not drive automobiles, that she agrees with the concept of the facility, and that personal care would be better than congregate care because the senior citizens would not be driving on to the street. Commissioner Winburn stated that if the applicants reduced the intensity, that would increase . the parking area. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the applicants reduce the overall height, reduce the mass, and that they consider changing the mix of the studio unit and one bedroom unit. He explained that the same number of units would be available, but it would cut down the floor area. He commented that there may not be a major impact on the income but it would be a method of finding extra space for parking and to cut down the Floor Area Ratio at the same time. The Planning .Commission recessed at 11:58 p.m. and reconvened at 12:00 midnight. Mr. Christeson and Chairman PersGn discussed a continuance of the subject use permit, and the additional time that the applicant would need to redraw the plans, and to meet with the community and staff. Mr. Seltzer reappeared before the Planning Commission and he stated that the Steering Committee of the Neighbors to Preserve Corona del Mar would be willing to meet with the applicants, and he suggested that the applicants come back with a proposal that would be half the size that is currently proposed. He commented that the community feels that cosmetic changes would not be enough. He stated that it would have to be substantive or the residents will fight the project. -25- COMMISSIONERS V \91 Ask Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 21, 1988 R ALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. All Ayes 3312 and Traffic Study to the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ITEM: Discussion Item Planning Commission Review of Planning Commission Staff Report Recommendations. Review of Recommenda- INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach tions Following a discussion by the Planning Commissioners, a motion was made to maintain the current status of Motion * providing staff reports to the Planning Commission Ayes * * * * * * without staff recommendations. Motion was voted on, No * MOTION CARRIED. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business Motion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Chairman Person All Ayes from the May 5, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. person MOTION CARRIED. excused ADJOURNMENT: 12:08 a.m. Adjournment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -26-