Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2004 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. 0 Page 1 of 29 file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - Commissioners Kiser and Toerge are excused. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Jeff Goldfarb, Consulting Attorney of Rutan and Tucker Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on June 11, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of ITEM NO. i June 3, 2004. Approved Approved as amended and ordered filed. Motion was made by Chairperson McDaniel to approve the minutes as amended. Ayes: I Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Noes: None file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 • 11 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 Absent: Kiser, Toerge Abstal I None x.� HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Group Homes in Residential Zones (PA2004- 102) The proposed amendment will establish new definitions applicable to group homes and amends where and how group homes may locate and operate within residential zones. Attorney Goldfarb, special counsel, noted the following: The attorneys met with Darren Cottriel of Pillsbury Winthrop, LLP attorneys for Linda Orozco and Denys Oberman. . A number of changes have been made resulting from the first Planning Commission public hearing and are contained in the staff report: 1) Definition of 'campus' - means three or more buildings being used together for a common purpose where one of the buildings provides a service for the users of all the buildings. 2) The Planning Commission is going to be the agency that is responsible for looking at what was previously called a reasonable accommodation and has now been changed to a 'Federal Exception Permit.' 3) The factors applicable to a 'reasonable accommodation' or a 'Federal Exception Permit as it is now called, have been changed. A number of criteria have been added. 4) We have clarified that the process for a 'Federal Exception Permit is a public hearing process with notice and hearing prior to a determination by the Planning Commission. At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Goldfarb noted: There are a number of findings that the Planning Commission must make in order to grant a Federal Exception Permit and are contained in C.3 in the draft ordinance. The second finding relates to whether the applicant is operating as a single housekeeping unit. All residential uses in the City are required to operate as a single housekeeping unit. If the applicant is not operating as a single housekeeping unit and they have seven or more residents in the facility, then it would not qualify for a Federal Exception Permit. Operating as a single housekeeping unit is that you don't have a high degree of file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0617.htm Page 2 of 29 ITEM NO.2 PA2004 -102 Recommended for approval 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 individual transition within the living group. Typically a family • does not swap out its children on a regular basis. Living as a single housekeeping unit is a lack of transiency amongst the group itself. An example of unstable occupancy would be for instance, a group home of forty residents and the residents were constantly changing, so within the course of a year that group home had approximately 170 different residents. That was a high degree of transiency, and that high degree of transiency plus other factors, demonstrated that they were not living together as a single housekeeping unit. Commissioner Selich affirmed that this would refer to what the status of the property would be after the applicant has the permit for the group home. Continuing, Mr. Goldfarb added: • Item 3 states, to the extent authorized by law, considerations in terms of issuing whether, and to what extent, a Federal Exception Permit can be issued, include whether the granting of the Federal Exception Permit will substantially cause traffic in the area of the project to exceed the acceptable standards of significance; whether the granting of the Federal Exception Permit will operate in a manner substantially out of conformance with the manner in which the surrounding neighborhood operates; whether the granting of the Federal Exception Permit will generate substantial amounts of commercial traffic in the neighborhood; and whether it will result in a 'campus' in a residential zone. • All of these are designed to ensure that the standards that are applicable to the group home are the same standards that are applicable to other residential uses in the same zone. • If different standards are applied than the standards applicable to residential uses in that zone, then we violate the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHAA) because we are in essence, discriminating against that particular type of use. • The goal was to go through the City Code try to come up with the standards that would generally be applicable to residential uses and equally make sure that they were applied to the group homes. • At Commission inquiry, he noted that an example of traffic violation would be if it was a significant traffic generator such that it violated the City's standards of significance for whatever roadway people are using to get there. If it violated the Level of Service (LOS) standard that are applicable in the area, that Page 3 of 29 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 would be a grounds for not approving the Federal Exception Permit. The City would have the ability to perform a traffic study, and always has the ability to do its own investigation on an application. . There could be a situation if it was a house that on a. regular basis, or an institutional bases, drew a lot of users to that house for some particular purpose, say for a meeting. If the traffic generated when those meetings were occurring was in excess of what is permitted in the City Code, then that would be a problem. . If after the permit was issued, it was then shown to have those negative impacts, the Planning Commission would have the ability to call it back for review and would be a grounds to modify the permit to make sure the violation did not occur again, or revoking the permit. Commissioner Cole asked for explanation of the 'campus' definition. Is there a federal standard or legal issue related, and can we impose greater restrictions in the form of conditions of parking in the event of a 'campus' environment? Mr. Goldfarb answered. . Having a series of three, four or five homes and one of those homes serving as the dining room for all of them, in essence, what you have is an over - concentration of individuals coming to a single house for a particular service. It creates a situation as if that home had that number of people in it. It would be a much more intense use than otherwise would be the case based on the number of people that reside in that particular home. • The idea was to try to address the situation where the occupancy spikes significantly because one of the buildings is functioning as a particular location for many different buildings. • There is no specific federal standard that applies to campus. There is not even a federal definition that applies to campus. Three seemed to be a reasonable number to suggest that you are creating a critical mass and that is what we were looking to do. • If it is a campus situation, then it is not permitted as a use so the issue of conditioning does not come up. Commissioner Tucker noted that following the rational of campus concept having one facility being utilized by two other buildings, why would it be different if those same people instead of residing in Page 4 of 29 file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 adjoining buildings were brought in? You will still have the same over- use, is it somehow less offensive if they have come in via van, rather than live in buildings next door? Why is there a distinction? Mr. Goldfarb answered that what they were trying to deal with is a situation where the campus is institutionalized. It may be in certain circumstances that people are ferried one way or another into a particular building. What we tried to do was distinguish it from situations that apply to the standard residential use. Some individuals have parties at their houses perhaps more than the average individual, but people are allowed to do that. We were dealing with an institutional situation where when you have a particular building that is designated as being the dining hall for a number of other satellite buildings, that is substantially different from the individual who every Saturday night has a party. That was our best attempt to try to address the problem, but not do it in a way that is different than the way that we typically deal with the City's standard residential uses. Commissioner Tucker noted this is a commercial enterprise and the law requires us to not do anything about it as long as the intensity of that use is effectively no different from what a single family use could or would be in the same zone. The reality is, the intensity of the commercial use steps over the line. I am not sure that we have anybody that operates their own home the way that these rehab centers seem to operate their business. We are trying to say that somebody could operate their home in this type of fashion, but if we actually had people that did on a purely private basis, we would start looking at ordinances to say that is enough, you are stepping into a commercial mode. What would stop somebody from having parties in their houses and charging people? Mr. Goldfarb answered that the problem is that Federal law does not focus on the limitation in terms of the intensity of uses. The intensity of use may be higher than the intensity of virtually every other residential use in the community. Federal Law does not say you get to regulate it based on intensity. What Federal law says is you are simply not allowed to create different regulations that apply to these uses in a way that wouldn't apply to a regular residential use. For instance, the City comes up with an ordinance that allowed residents to have only X number of people coming to their homes X number of times a week. If that applied to the average residential use, then that would equally apply to group homes. The analysis, in terms of what Federal law limits us in doing, is the regulation different than the regulation that applies to ordinary residential uses? What Federal law says is that the City must consider these things to be regular residential use. Commissioner Tucker asked what the consequences would be if we were to pass and attempt to enforce a law that was found to be Page 5 of 29 file: //H:1Planeomm1200410617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 inconsistent with Federal law? What happens to the City? Mr. Goldfarb explained that the lawsuit that would be brought would be one for violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Whether a civil rights action could be brought or not, depends on analysis of the case. He stated he was not sure of what the measure of damages would be for the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner Tucker noted that it is hard to judge when someone is stretching the limits of a commercial operation. It seems that something could be passed citywide that would address a commercial operation in a residential zone. One of the things to consider if we come up with a law that tries to limits things that could happen in anybody's residence in that zone, what is the consequence if we were to lose that case. Mr. Goldfarb noted his concern is that he is not aware of a single case where the court has said to a City, yes you are right, that is a commercial use in a residential zone and therefore you are allowed to prohibit it or regulate it as a commercial use. Commissioner Tucker answered that by defining what is a residential use and having limits on it, you really haven't called it a commercial use, you haven't needed to make that distinction. You just said, in terms of meetings and people in a given location, here is what the standards are. It would have the same result. Mr. Goldfarb noted that if the City had an ordinance that prohibited a certain number of people coming to your house over a certain period of time that was equally applied to all residential uses in the City, it would not be discriminatory. It would have to be something that applies equally. That is really the touchstone of the federal regulation. The FFHA is geared toward prohibiting discrimination. Federal law in all of the cases are very clear in the way that they say that the Federal Government has concluded that there is a significant public benefit that is achieved by having group homes in residential zones and integrates people in group homes into a residential community. That is the basic purpose of the law. Commissioner Tucker noted he agrees with that. However, at what point do you say that is not really trying to integrate people into an area in a group home context, that is just pure unbridled commercial enterprise in a residential neighborhood. Otherwise it is an impossible task for you to come up with and for us to decide on, we are not really getting to the issue which is how much is too much. Maybe we install a standard in a community that generally likes to let people do to their property what they see fit. Maybe there comes a point where we put the same regulation on everybody in the City when we are really concerned about a few abusers. Commissioner Eaton asked about the list of questions that he had sent to Mr. Burnham: Page 6 of 29 file: //H:\Plancomm1200410617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 Mr. Goldfarb answered: is . The standard health, safety and welfare detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity has not been included as a finding as including this language would be too broad. The FHAA will not allow us to impose such broad standards as they are not equally applicable to residential uses in the residential zones. . The next question related to the criteria used for the Federal Exception Permit being applied only in violation of the Municipal Code and the discretion of the Planning Commission. Ms Clauson explained that in the context of the Federal Exception Permit, the idea is that of a consideration. Would this use, as has been shown to occur, create problems that would violate the Municipal Code. It would be a basis for a finding of denial, even though it would apply anyway, it would be something to look at and say commercial traffic regulations that we might have, or truck sizes on certain residential streets, or to the extent that there might be any traffic impacts that are specifically outlined that they are the same regulations that we have for traffic and other types of uses in the City. Then those are the types of things that it would be applied to and looked at perspectively as opposed to yes of course it is enforceable anywhere in the City. . Continuing, Mr. Goldfarb added: • Part of the function of the Planning Commission in the process is to be a fact finding body. The reason for the hearing is for the Planning Commission to make the determination on whether the facts are present to either approve or deny the application. It may not be the kind of discretion that is typically applied in a conditional use permit (CUP) type context, but there is an important role for the Planning Commission to perform and that is to perform in a quasi adjudicatory capacity. • The last question relates to why have we continued to suggest that the seven or more facilities can operate in the R1.5 and the R -2 zones. No new basis have been discovered for the rational, which is that the City's R -1.5 and R -2 zones have historically been created such that they are typically different than the R -1 zone. It becomes very difficult to go into court and say that these zones are so much like the R -1 zone that there is not the kind of turnover that the R -1 zone has such that it requires it be treated like an R -1 zone. • The campus definition has been clarified. He then noted two correspondences from Mr. James C. Person and Mr. Daniel Carlton regarding this standard. The issue that made the standard ambiguous was it didn't describe where the buildings • were located for the purpose of figuring out is it or is it not a campus? He then read the entire definition as revised: 'Campus means three or more buildings in a residential zone within a one Page 7 of 29 file: //H:1Plancomm1200410617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 block radius of each other being used for a common purpose where one of the buildings provide a service for the users of all of the buildings, such as when one of the buildings serves as a kitchen or food service area for the users of the several buildings.' . We added that the buildings are in a residential zone. The reason this is important is because if all the residents of those buildings are taken someplace in an industrial or commercial zone, then it isn't an issue for the operation of the residential zone. We didn't think the campus issue played into that. . The other thing is that the buildings be located within a one block radius of each other. The attempt is to try and bring it within the confines of the one case where the court has upheld a campus regulation. Commissioner Eaton noted when there was a previous discussion with Commission Tucker that even if the residents were being shuttled in from a further distance that could create the intensity which could create the problems. Apparently now that would not be part of the campus definition. Mr. Goldfarb answered that was not included in the definition. That is not to say that you are not creating that kind of intensity when people are being bussed in. That was not something that I had considered when I drafted this definition. I have not seen a case where that issue has been addressed. There is one case that spoke to the issue of campus. The court addressed it in terms of 'ghettoization'. What the court said is if the purpose of having group homes in a residential zone is to integrate people into an ordinary residential community, then you are to some extent defeating that purpose if what you are doing is creating a campus internally focused that really does not have an interaction with the community that is around it. The court suggested that at some point the facility operates in a way that it is so large that it is inward facing and provides all its own services, where there is not that kind of integration with the community, where in essence everybody's neighbor is, for purposes of the FHAA, handicapped, so there is no integration. The case was dealing with a physical campus, and that is why we drafted the language the way that we did. Chairperson McDaniel asked about the definition of a block. If one house is on the east end of the 100 block and the other house is on the west end of 200 block they are a block away, but they are essentially across the street from each other. Mr. Goldfarb answered that his thought with a one block radius is in essence, you take a block and then draw a block around it and bring that in. • Commissioner Selich asked what the criteria was for not including the R -A and R -1 in the Federal Exception Permit? How did you draw the line between R -1 and R -1.5. Page 8 of 29 file: //H: \Planeomm \2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 Mr. Goldfarb noted that the criteria of uses with seven or more persons is simply not permitted in those zones. The R -1.5 zone operates substantially differently than the R -1 does. Ms. Clauson added that historically the R -1 is more the single family residence without the higher weekly rentals, for either summer /winter. Commissioner Selich noted this is an occupancy standard. Are you saying that we have to do this because we have to integrate these facilities in the community and in the residential neighborhoods and we have to do it equally, but yet you are saying that in an R -1.5 they are permitted, but not permitted in the R -1. How are you meeting the criteria of the Federal law if you are excluding them out of the R -1 zone and allowing them in the R -1.5. Mr. Goldfarb answered that the standard for people living in the R -1 zone is that individuals living there have to live as a single housekeeping unit. It was our estimation that was not occurring if we drafted it differently. Ms. Clauson added that the R -1 zone is more of a single family household, less turnover, less transiency as far as not the individuals within the house operating as a single family unit, but the turnover in the rentals. You have a high turnover of people coming and going in the weekly rentals. The R -1 operates more as a single family, low turnover, owner occupied residential area as opposed to the ones that have the higher turnover as far as the family rentals with students. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Goldfarb added that we believe we are complying with the Federal law in those districts and not exempting ourselves by the way the ordinance is drafted. Commissioner Selich noted that this is still not right in the R -1.5 and R -2 districts because many of those districts operate substantially as single family residential districts even though they are zoned R -2. Areas like Corona del Mar, where you have a lot of R -2 zoning but there are blocks where it is all single family homes. Or, if it is not single family homes, it is duplexes that have been turned into condominiums and are effectively operating as single family units even though they are two units on a lot. They don't have turnover if they are ownerloccupied condominium units. There are some areas in the City in the R -2 where you have higher density units, like triplexes up to a sixplex. There are a lot of areas that are operating essentially as a single family. By making the definition of where they are permitted or not permitted just based purely on the zoning and not looking at geographic areas seems like we are taking some areas in the City that are essentially single family in character and allowing these uses to go in. If they were zoned R -1, we wouldn't do that. Mr. Goldfarb answered that may be. It may well be that we are struggling with the fact that there are some R -2 areas that operate more akin to an R -1 area. But to the extent that they remain R -2 areas, we have to deal with those R -2 areas as the other R -2 areas operate. Perhaps the answer to that problem is to rezone those areas Page 9 of 29 file: //H:1Plancomm1200410617.htm 07117/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 to something other than R -2. Commissioner Selich asked what the consequence would be of drawing the line rather between the R -1 and R -1.5, drawing it between the R -2 and the MFR. What would be the consequences or problems if we take the R -1.5 and the R -2 areas and analyze them and came up with areas that were primarily single family in nature and applied this in some type of overlay format that would apply one standard to rental areas and one standard to single family areas. Mr. Goldfarb answered that we would have a difficult time establishing the factual basis in a challenge to prevail. That may be a valuable exercise, and we could distinguish then between zones and provide different zoning designations through an overlay. In effect that would isolate zones that are in essence R -1 zones and they could be treated accordingly. Commissioner Cole affirmed that the draft ordinance defines campus as it would apply when it is necessary to grant or deny Federal Exception Permit. If a residential care limited for those homes that are six or under are permitted in all zones therefore the campus definition would not apply in those cases. If there were three or more houses together in those situations then it would apply. Public comment was opened. • John Stearman, Narcanon of Southern California, referencing the letter from their attorney, noted they support the ordinance as long as it was compliant with Federal and State laws and regulations. Continuing, he noted: • Concerned with the Federal Exception Permit definition. • He asked how the transiency issue is not applied to all the rentals in the City as well. • The permit requires findings for traffic. The proposed hotel for the peninsula, traffic and congestion there could be more than one home could create. • The definition of campus should be addressed. • There are residential areas with churches and American Legion Hall, etc. where they have a lot of transients on a regular basis. • He asked that whatever is applied to his facility, should be applied citywide. Commissioner Tucker asked that the use intensity that Narcanon is putting the properties to, is that something that you have given any consideration to reducing? What has brought the issue to the forefront is that Narcanon has taken the use that is a granted use and keeps pushing the intensity. You have people who have bought in the Page 10 of 29 file : //H:1Plancomm1200410617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 residential neighborhood and now they have this new neighbor that is trucking in more new neighbors. It gets to the point that you look at it and say this can't be what the law meant, and if it did mean that then maybe we need to change our local ordinances as our attorneys advise. Mr. Stearman answered that they cooperate with the neighbors. Sometime ago they used to have events related to Narcanon and because of neighbors concerns in the residential area, those were eliminated. Jerry Marshall, 1810 West. Oceanfront, with Narcanon, noted that recovery is needed and changes people for the better. He noted that this item was originally brought up by people who discriminate people who are in recovery. Discrimination is an issue that needs to be brought up and discussed. The issues of campus and lack of transiency of people in group homes goes against providing reasonable accommodations. This ordinance must be made less restrictive in order to comply with the FHAA. Mr. Goldfarb noted: Transiency standards can be imposed in the same zones where houses are on a short term rental because the transiency focuses on the individuals within the living group changing. That is different than the duration of a rental period for the unit itself. • Commissioner Tucker told the audience not to speak on the need of these services, the Commission understands that. This item has to deal with the intensity of the services and regulation of that intensity to the extent that the Commission can. If you have personal experiences, that's great. However, that is not the issue tonight. Please limit comments to zoning issues only, Dave Silva, Director of Community Relations of Warner Springs, related a story on the community involvement of Narcanon. He asked for the Commission support. Commissioner McDaniel stated that the Commission understands the work of rehab facilities. The Commission can only control zoning issues. He asked that members of the audience should relate zoning issues only. Sally Knara, founder and director of Parent Help USA, and Mothers Against Child Abuse. She noted that she has been in the City with several shelters. She noted that there is discretion in every law and that up to 85% child abuse occurs under the influence of alcohol and drugs. She asked that the Commission support Narcanon. Rich Reuben, attorney with Pillsbury Winthrop noted: . Campus issue - the number of three buildings does not make any sense. A definition of three buildings means a large Page 11 of 29 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 apartment complex with all those specific impacts. . One block radius - given the distances on the peninsula, he suggested that yardage be used to make more sense. . Other local cities have adopted stricter ordinances. For example, Irvine requires CUP's for over 7 occupants recovery facilities; Costa Mesa requires CUP's and reasonable accommodation approval processes. Why does Newport Beach have a less restrictive ordinance? . At the May 20th meeting, an audit was requested to determine the size, location, character, and type requirements of existing facilities. Before you approve an ordinance, you ought to know what is out there. Without all the facts, you can not make a good decision. Commissioner Cole asked if the requirements for the CUP's for seven or more recovery homes is for all zoning designations or certain zones? Mr. Goldfarb answered that the City of Irvine has two different regulations applicable to facilities that could be considered to house handicap persons under the FHAA. The City provides that any sober living environment regardless of the number of persons it serves is permitted without any permits in any residential zone within the City. It is not correct that a CUP is required. Andra Clark noted if this is a zoning issue being discussed, then if you are going to discuss how many people can come in and out of a residential area, then you have to start looking at the beach rentals, condos and summer vacations. Those places are only allowed for a certain amount of time and there are no rules or regulations how many people can occupy a space like that. It would bring about the same amount of transients in a row of summer beach rentals as you are talking about tonight for group homes. People will be coming in from areas outside the City and not know the rules and regulations. It seems to me it should fall under the same rules. Carol Martin, resident of 1800 block of West Oceanfront, presented materials and noted the following: • Pictures showing the nature of mufti- family zoning in Newport Beach. • She had surveyed her block and noted that there 14 lots with an average ownership of 30.5 years with the median length of ownership of 22 years... • Only three properties are not owner occupied and with the exception of one problematic property, more than 50% of the residents are over 50 years old. Page 12 of 29 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 • She noted her agreement with the proposals allowing group living facilities as proposed. • She supports the Planning Commission will be the entity to grant or not grant the Federal Exception Permits. • The weakest factor in this proposal is enforcement. She asked that this area be further addressed. • The criteria should be strengthened. • Section 10C3i and 3ii refer to vehicular traffic increasing to an extent that they would violate any provision of the Municipal Code and asked for a clarification that those issues are dealt with in the Municipal Code or the General Plan? Ms. Temple answered that those standards are both in the General Plan and the Municipal Code. Dave Johnson, property owner of 1811 West Balboa Blvd. noted the following: • He rented the back unit to Narcanon and then retired to Lake Ellsinore and is now back. • • He is disturbed by all the uproar that is going on and does not like to see this. • He had lived in the main unit with Narcanon in the smaller one for two years and there was no problem during that time. • The time that Narcanon had been there and had there been any problem with his other rentals, he would have addressed those problems right away. • As he is now back living here to take care of his rentals, he will be the first one to call if there are any problems. • He requested that a fair compromise should be reached, one that should equitable for everyone. Steve Marquisi, asked if this ordinance would affect property owners who rent. Ms. Clauson answered the City regulations that currently address rental units is the Short Term Lodging Ordinance and then with regards to parties, we actually have a Large Gathering or Party Ordinance that deal with nuisances caused by over loud or over large parties. Mr. Richard Perlin, 1216 W. Balboa, Executive Director of Newport Coast Recovery noted that his group tries to be a good neighbor and Page 13 of 29 file: //HAPlancomm1200410617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 are responsive to any concerns that the City or neighbors may have. • We take all input very seriously. If there is a forum that could be developed where we can address any concerns that arise, we would be happy to participate. Commissioner Eaton asked how many clients and apartments were in his facility. Mr. Perlin answered that they have 6 apartments and are State licensed for 27 people and average 20 people. Mike Newman, partner in Newport Coast Recovery added that their clients are not allowed to have vehicles. There is no traffic impact as far as parking or driving. We have no traffic impact in our neighborhood. Donna Cambo, 1812 West Balboa Blvd., asked if the amount of people could be kept to 20. She noted the stress of living next door to Narcanon. Her home is 3 feet from this building and the smoke and cigarette butts in her yard are very troublesome. There are many people that come to Narcanon daily. There is a lot of bad language. She asked that the Planning Commission make them accountable. At Commission inquiry, she noted that people are bused in a van and the vans are parked on the sides. They also come in on bicycles that are left everywhere. • Public comment was closed. Commissioner Eaton noted that the Costa Mesa ordinance includes a reasonable accommodation shall be considered in conjunction with the conditional use permit. How does that process work? Mr. Goldfarb answered he did not draft the Costa Mesa ordinance. However, when applying the standards for purposes of a reasonable accommodation they are aware of the limitations that the FHAA has and apply basically standards that are similar to what are being suggested here. Chairman McDaniel asked about the radius of a block and the use of distance. Mr. Goldfarb noted that a distance could be considered. The term of a City block is 1,000 feet. Using a measured distance could be done. Commissioner Selich noted he does not like it and trying to do overlays as suggested during the evening might cause more problems than what we are dealing with here. Commissioner Tucker asked if it would be worth while defining campus to mean how it has been defined by Mr. Goldfarb, or • incorporating the concept where regardless of where people live, campus means where you have a building that is taking and doing specialized functions such as food or meeting areas where people Page 14 of 29 file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 come in from some other buildings either nearby or several buildings, further away for given activities. At some point, maybe campus could be more broadly defined in our ordinance than what case law has said so far. Case law may not have addressed a definition of bringing people in by van. The campus issue may have addressed just the facts that were before the court at that time. I would like to see if we can incorporate that concept having to treat all housing units in the R- 1.5 and R -2 zones the same, we may need to deal with it so that everyone is covered. That is a policy decision that the Council will have to look at. Trying to do it the way we are trying to is not going to be as comprehensive a way as coming in and dealing with the issues on all structures in the R -1:5 and R -2 zones so that everybody is treated the same. The Council will have to make a policy decision as to whether addressing the issue in that type of fashion is more painful than just leaving things the way they are. The only way to get to the bottom of the issue, if the neighbors and Narcanons of the world can not figure it out between themselves, the problems will have to be addressed on a more overall basis. Chairperson McDaniel noted his concern of campus and distances as well. 300 yards or 1,000 feet as opposed to a block would give it some universality throughout the City. The campus, why does it need to be three buildings; as was said its the function at one as opposed to being how many units there are participating. What about the busing issue? If one place is functioning as a mess hall and people come in from who knows where to eat, that makes it a campus. Mr. Goldfarb answered that he is more comfortable with three than with two. The City is restricted by existing law and existing precedent. He will look at the busing issue between now and the time this item goes to City Council and was unable to render a legal opinion on the defensibility as he needs research. He noted he understands the rational of a commuter campus and a live in campus. The Commission can exercise its discretion to forward this item to the City Council and in the interim we can look at it to give our best legal analysis. Ms. Clauson noted that what was worked on by special counsel and the City Attorney's office and presented tonight is what we thought with the analysis that was done was the most legally defensible ordinance to suggest to the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission wants to make some recommended changes, then we would have to analyze that in the meanwhile and let the City Council decide whether it would be defensible or not. Chairperson McDaniel noted that he would like to recommend the yardage distance and the campus issue. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker that we approve, and file a report with the City Council of our findings and recommendations that are set forth in the staff report and the proposed amendment to • the Zoning Code that ensures preservation of the unique character of our residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent permitted by State and Federal statutory and decisional law. He would like to Page 15 of 29 file: //H:1Plancomm1200410617.htm 07/17/2004 • u Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 change the definition of campus to be two or more buildings in a residential zone within a 300 yard radius of each other. He would like to ask the City Attorney to consider expanding the term campus to include the concept of a commuter campus where there are specialized uses in one building and people are brought in whether from an adjoining building or far away places for those uses. He also suggests to the City Council that the Council consider adopting group gathering standards for all structures in the R -1.5 and R -2 zones to better address the issues. Ms. Clauson noted that the opinion is not going to change regarding the legal defensibility on campus being less than three. The only case that talks about a campus situation had many more than three. They wanted to try to add three. There is also the added restrictions of distancing requirements. If the focus is more on the campus and the use of the facility rather than the numbers. If you want to recommend two, we will advise Council at that time. Commissioner Tucker noted he is not sure about the defensibility. He acquiesced to the attorneys' judgment and will change the number from two to three buildings. Commissioner Eaton noted he was unable to support the motion. He cited a personal experience relating to his now - deceased daughter, that has convinced him of the enormous value of these facilities; but noted that as a planner he could not support a process that appears to be designed to have virtually no discretion. It appears that the only way the Planning Commission would have discretion to deny a Federal Exception Permit would be if the Commission found it did not comply with the Code. He doesn't think that allows any discretion. He can not support allowing the larger homes of seven or more in the R- 1.5 or R -2. He has no problem with the smaller facilities, but when you can not exercise discretion on the larger homes, and you can't exercise any discretion on how large those larger homes can be then the City has given up all our possible control even if that would be the safest and most secure to go in terms of the Federal Housing Act. Commissioner Tucker noted that the last part of his motion was a recommendation that the Council consider adopting group gathering standards for all structures in the R -1.5 and the R -2 zones. I think that drives to the issue, it is not up to us to ignore what the legal counsel has suggested even though I do not agree with it. It is hard to envision that when these laws were passed, that what has happened was an intended consequence. By hearing what special counsel said the legislative bodies didn't look at it that way, instead they just looked at adopting standards that were the same as the standards in the zone and as long as you don't counter those standards, it's okay to have these group home uses. To really address it is to look at the standards for all those zones and I don't know if Council wants to do that. I think we have raised a lot of questions and I think this needs to go back to the Council to deal with. • IAyes: I Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Noes: Eaton Page 16 of 29 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 Absent: • Abstain: Toerge and Kiser None *.x Page 17 of 29 SUBJECT: Carty Residence (PA 2004 -079) ITEM NO.3 1306 -1308 South Bay Front PA2004 -079 An appeal of the Modifications Committee's denial of a request for Denied approval of a Modification Permit to allow the addition of an elevator that will reduce the depth of the existing carport parking space. The proposal includes a request to allow the carport parking space to encroach 4 feet into the required 5 -foot rear yard setback at the alley. Associate Planner Gregg Ramirez confirmed that the Commission received copies of letters that were received by staff. The basis for the denial by the Modifications Committee was based upon, and further review by staff of the proposal, that the existing condition, although non - conforming, did afford some area for cars to tuck in under the stairs. Cars small enough to tuck under the stairs would probably not be long enough to hang over into the setback. However, it would completely eliminate that potential. It would also approve an encroachment into the alley setback that is not recommended by the Traffic Division of the Public Works Department or the Planning • Department in order for the alley to provide maximum space for maneuverability. Ms. Temple added that in terms of the request to allow the encroachment into the alley side setback on Balboa Island, Balboa Island alley widths are the narrowest in the City at ten feet. Staff hesitates in any way to authorize encroachments into those because of the alley constraints as opposed to a place like Corona del Mar where the alleys are four feet wider. Mr. Edmonston noted that while it is not specifically codified in the Municipal Code, one of the key purposes of the alley setback is to provide an effectively wider alley so that in this case with a ten foot alley and a 5 foot setback on each side, you have a total of 20 feet that can accommodate two -way traffic. The alleys on Balboa Island, particularly these Bay Front alleys, function more like streets than alleys and so that extra width is very important. Chairperson McDaniel asked if there was adequate space inside to accommodate the elevator. Mr. Ramirez answered that upon review of the floor plans there could be other options for placing the elevator within the existing living area • of the unit. At Commission inquiry, he noted that the alley is fifteen feet wide. file : //H:1Plancomm1200410617.htm 07/1712004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 Ms. Temple noted on the vicinity map, the alley is in a 'T' configuration • and that is a common condition on Balboa Island. The property to the rear of this particular residence, the property line is its side yard. It is within the Code allowed to have a side yard property fence on the property line. Except up to within five feet of that property rear yard setback, there can be a fence on the property line, which would further constrain the alley in this location. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted that it is commonly the Public Works staff opinion, and we are one of three votes on the Modification Committee, that setbacks function for a variety of reasons. From our perspective, it is primarily rather than requiring a wider alley that would be permanently dedicated, it gives the people some use of that property. They can count on it for floor area, etc. Yet, by having that setback and keeping it free of permanent obstructions or other things to the extent that we can such as parked cars, then we gain the functionality without requiring the dedication of property. There have been cases near these 'T' alleys where a property that has been torn down the Public Works Department has actually required the property owner to set their parking back more than the five foot minimum in order to make that parking functional. Even with those setbacks, the parking spaces are not easy to get in or out of. Any imposition to those can be a real problem, whether it's a car or a house directly across with a rear yard or a side yard or even how busy the alley is. Ms. Temple noted that Mr. Jay Garcia, Chairman of the Modifications Committee was on hand to answer questions regarding the Committee deliberations. Chairman McDaniel affirmed that there is remodeling being done to the home itself, not just a stand alone elevator being added. Commissioner Selich noted that the existing carport space from a practical standpoint does encroach into the setback, but the problem is that this application would legitimatize that encroachment. Ms. Temple answered that this legitimatizes the setback, and looking at the nature of the stairway, it looks like it could be modified in some way to create a greater conformity. The installation of this type of elevator would render this a permanent condition. Amy Jo Gottfurcht, daughter of the owner of the property, made a Power point presentation, noting: . The units were built in 1965 and they purchased them in 1969. • . Currently there are 19 feet 6 inches between the stairwell and the property line. Page 18 of 29 file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 • They applied for a modification in April and were denied in May. . There is no change to the current parking area with the installation of the proposed elevator as it replaces the back stairwell. • The elevator is proposed to be in the back due to cost and simplicity and does not diminish parking. • She then noted the stairwell location being replaced by the elevator with a piece of plywood in front of it. • There is no change to the alley, no change to the 'T', no change to parking, and does not negatively impact the neighbors. • The elevator would enhance the wellbeing of her mother. • Her neighbors are in favor of the elevator. At Commission inquiry, she noted that 11 1/2 inches would be gained in parking if the elevator became a part of the back wall. It could also become part of the back wall structure and therefore gain an additional approximate 6 inches; however, it would require extensive . foundation work with major engineering and structural change. Mr. Garcia, Senior Planner, as the Chairman of the Modifications Committee at Commission inquiry, noted the following reasons for the Committee decision: • This item had been continued once to give the applicant an opportunity to look at alternatives to maximize the depth of the parking spaces and minimize the encroachment. • The applicant came back the second time and put forth basically no alternative other than to say that it would have some type of additional cost to the construction already being done. • On that basis, plus the fact that it was a four foot encroachment into the five foot setback, it was not adequate and did not meet the intent of the Code to maintain the alley setback. • There was no evidence given relating to placing the elevator inside the building. However, additions are done to buildings all the time where post and beam construction can basically support the second floor. The applicant put forth no information to that effect to the Modifications Committee. Commissioner Tucker asked what the findings for denial by the Modifications Committee were. Page 19 of 29 file: //H:1Plancomm1200410617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 Mr. Garcia, referring to the applicant's slide showing a pick up truck coming out of the 'T' intersection answered that if the property to the rear across the alley was developed, which will eventually occur, that side yard property line where the truck is would have to come out an additional three feet in order to make that same turn. Once you put an encroachment into that setback the cumulative effect will be the turning radius coming out further into the alley. Commissioner Cole noted that the applicant stated the path of travel would not be obstructed by the elevator, one of the findings listed in the staff report was that there is a potential that both parked cars would encroach due to the need for access to the elevator. Mr. Ramirez stated that he noted that in his staff report and it was based on a visual inspection of the property when he had visited the site. There were two vehicles parked in the garage at the time, one was pulled up in position and it looked like it would be difficult for someone to pass through, whether on foot or in a wheel chair, without having the vehicle pulled back. Commissioner Selich asked about the stairwell that is nonconforming. Was that stairwell built with the original building, or was it added later? Mr. Garcia answered that the stairway was a portion of the original construction. All three of those buildings were constructed at the same time. But, review of the previous plans for the original construction showed that the stairway was not configured the way it is now as far as the plans that were approved. The stairs terminated at a landing in the side yard and then there were two or three treads in the side yard that went forward and back. The stairs basically are not conforming with the plans that were approved with the original construction, and that would have given more vertical clearance in the front of the parking space for the vehicles to park under, probably another 1 112 or 2 feet. Commissioner Selich affirmed that it was built not according to the approved plans and was answered, yes. Public comment was opened. Don Carty, general contractor noted: . The utility pole shown on the slide with the truck, there are plans for those poles to go underground and if that pole was not there, you would gain an additional 6 to 8 feet turning radius. Mr. Edmonston noted that petitions have been submitted to the City Council for undergrounding utilities for that area and staff has been authorized to proceed with the formation of a district. However, it is Page 20 of 29 file: //H: \Planeomm\2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 several years away from a vote for the people to see if it will proceed. • These programs are popular in the City and now the timing is 4 to 5 years out and is a long and drawn out process. Tom O'Brien, 105 Marine Avenue, neighbor across the alley from this property, referring to the truck slide, noted that truck can get around there nicely, however, the telephone pole argument just made is irrelevant as it is for a right -hand turn, not for a left -hand turn. He has lived on the site for 18 years. On the slide you will notice that there is a conical shape by the end of the building on ground level. That conical shaped piece gets clobbered by cars at least ten times a week by people trying to make that curve. He asked that the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Modification Committee to deny the encroachment of the carport parking space for the following reasons: • This is a year -round rental duplex. Renters don't care how they park and don't know the rules. The reality is they will not pull way up and will be jutting back out as they have done for years. • The vehicle sizes are larger and will not get smaller. This is an affluent neighborhood with rentals of $3,000 or more a week. . • The staircase versus the wall. The staircase is open and has an iron girder with open steps. When you put up a wall, that will visually stop drivers from pulling up close. • The reduced depth of their parking space will impair my ability to get in and out of my property. Mr. John Gottfurcht noted that there is no change in the parking whether the stairway stays the same or the elevator is put in its stead. The depth of the parking will not be reduced and will not restrict ingress and egress for the adjoining property. Public comment was closed. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston gave a brief explanation of commercial parking standards compared to residential standards. Chairperson McDaniel noted he did not get clear information on the hardship this would create to the applicant. When we have a non- conforming situation, the Commission likes to get a conforming situation out of it when there is building going on. This is our opportunity and we ought to do that. I have heard that it is a hardship to do this because the building has to be done, but staff is saying that • it may not be the case. If you can build it on the inside, you should be able to build it on the outside. Page 21 of 29 file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0617.htm 07/1712004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 Mr. Carty answered that the second story wall projects out further. If you were to move this elevator back, you would encroach on the second story bedroom above. He then referred to a slide and discussed possible locations for the elevator, types of elevators, and the remodeling that would need to be done. Chairperson McDaniel asked why one of those things that run up and down the stairwell wouldn't work? Mrs. Gottfurcht answered that could be an alternative. Commissioner Cole noted his support of the applicant as it looks like there would be no difference with the elevator as opposed to the stairwell. Chairperson McDaniel noted his support of the Modifications Committee to deny this application. If we have an opportunity to fix a non - conforming situation while remodeling is being done, that is when we should do it. The stairwell will function just as well for the applicant and I don't like overriding the decisions of the Modifications Committee as they do a good job of looking at these projects and, there are alternatives. Motion was made by Chairperson McDaniel to sustain the decision of the Modifications Committee to deny Modification Permit No. 2004- 028. Ayes: Eaton, McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Noes: Cole Absent: Toerge and Kiser Abstain: None Page 22 of 29 SUBJECT: Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club (PA2004 -002) ITEM NO. 4 1601 Bayside Drive PA2004 -002 An amendment to Use Permit No. 1437, to allow the reduction of Continued to required on -site parking from 122 to 95 spaces and to increase the dry July 22, 2004 storage boat capacity from 100 to 200 boats. The request requires consideration of a parking waiver per Section 20.66.100 of the Municipal Code. Chairperson McDaniel noted that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to July 22nd. He noted that the applicant has indicated that they want to make some changes to this proposal. Ms. Temple noted that many of the issues that members of the audience would like to discuss has to do with how the City conducts code enforcement of use permits. If The Commission would like, I can file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 explain how enforcement of this use permit has brought us to this . point. She noted that the applicant is here to reinforce their request for a continuance. This application is an outgrowth of an enforcement action that was conducted related to a complaint from a nearby commercial property relating to parking encroachment on the office building property across the street. When we investigated the complaint, we discovered that over time the operation of the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club had been changed in terms of its site plan rather substantially. Specifically, the required number of parking spaces in the original use permit was not being provided and that a control gate at the entries to the parking areas had been installed without approvals or benefit of building permits, and that the dry boat storage within the property was approximately twice that authorized in the use permit that came with the original construction of the club property. We in essence gave the Yacht Club two choices; one was to reinstate the site plan to be consistent with the approved site plan, or if they wanted to try and achieve what they had or something different than what was originally approved then they needed to file for a new use permit or an amendment to the existing use permit. They chose to amend the current use permit. Once someone has indicated they intend to pursue a permit amendment we essentially do not take any further aggressive enforcement action, but try to bring the application to the Planning Commission as quickly as possible. We • will admit that this took much longer than perhaps it should have, but in fact it is here tonight. Public comment was opened. Bill Rauth noted that he had a notice of violation dated October 15th and is a final warning. It indicates that the violation must be corrected on or before October 29th of last year and if not corrected by that date, there will be fines of up to $500 a day and in addition it will be subject to injunction and revocation of the permit. The Club has willfully violated their use permit and were caught almost a year ago. It is time to go to the City Attorney and get an injunction. That gate needs to be open as it is not a legal gate, to let the cars that are parked on the street park in the parking lot. 15% of the current parking is reserved for officers of the Club. Those spaces sit empty and 15 cars are forced to park on the street. The boats need to be removed from the parking lot. Bayside and El Paseo are not a private parking lot of the Bahia Corinthian. It is time that action be taken. This is willful behavior on the part of the Club. Commissioner Tucker noted we are not the code enforcement but it does sound like it has been going on for a while. The applicant has requested a continuance. Ms. Temple noted that during her conversation with the General Manager of the Club, they now want time to study the situation and Page 23 of 29 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06 /17/2004 come up with a workable solution. She strongly encouraged them that • in the interim time, well through and to the completion of the Planning Commission deliberations, that they cease to use the control gates for two reasons: it would address some of the ongoing issues the neighborhood and property owner across the street have been experiencing, and it is the right thing to do. They have indicated to me that they are in agreement with doing that. As part of this continuance, I would ask the Commission to state in the motion to continue that is a considered a requirement. At Commission inquiry, she noted that the City can enforce this. Typically when we take an enforcement action if the applicant takes steps to rectify the situation we generally tend to hold things like Administrative Citations in abeyance. Depending on what the Commission thinks our posture' should be, if you want full enforcement of the use permit then we will do as the last notice of violation says and until those defects occur, we will issue those citations. However, the applicant has indicated an affirmative willingness to open the gate and we did not discuss the removal of the dinghy racks. Chairperson McDaniel noted that anyone in the audience that has questions or concerns, should present them in writing to staff. Barry Levy, 113 Via Lido, spoke as the current commodore of the • Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club, noting the following: • He apologized for the request for a continuation noting that he is a novice and a volunteer and thought that up this point in time they were working in good faith. • Staff told them up front that they needed to have an outside consultant perform a parking management report, but failed to have one done. • After looking at the staff report, he realized how important the parking management report would be. • There was a meeting of the board meeting last night to discuss the use of the gate and that it be closed only during the time the Club was closed. They will open the gates starting tomorrow. Chairperson McDaniel noted that he would like to see that gate up and remain up as a start to rectify the many problems. A lot of changes are needed. Volunteer or not, you have been given letters saying last call and nothing has happened. He is bothered by this a lot. . Ms. Temple noted that on the issue related to the parking management study, it is typically not necessary to lower or use the gate for that kind of analysis. The kinds of issues surrounding the Page 24 of 29 file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 gate really are more function and operation geometric issues: • sufficient stacking distance, are the turning radiui correct, and for the purpose of estimating the parking demands of the Club, it is best to not have the gate down because persons wishing to access the facility are likely to try and park very close which is actually the onsite parking lot. Since the gate has no permits on it, there is no way to research any issues related to the gate. The gate was not approved in the use permit and they also did not get a building permit for it either. Mr. Levy answered he sees the point. As his role of Commodore, the list of complaints and issues goes back twenty, thirty years that we are inheriting. The quantity of boats, how it's been staged, and the layout of the land is pretty much the same going back for years. Not that it is right, but we are very concerned with our reputation and are very involved with fund raisers and involved in the harbor and they care. In all honesty, they really did not know how to handle this. Staff told us we were wrong, but we did not understand it, now we do. We appreciate that we can have a continuance to get all the facts to staff and we are willing to come back when you want us. Ms. Temple noted that the date would be July 22nd because that would be five weeks and time enough for this item to come back to be heard with all the information needed. Depending on the findings and • recommendations of the report it may take longer because they may have to prepare new plans if there is a recommendation to say reorganize the parking lot or reduce the dinghy storage. It is a doable timeframe if everyone is diligent about it but at that point we can further decide to continue. However, we want to keep this as short a period of time to keep the pressure on. She then recommended that the Club hire a planning professional to make this happen. Mr. Levy noted that there are a lot of assumptions that need to be clarified. We want to give all the information that we can and will keep in touch with staff. We are serious and want to do a good job on this. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to July 22, 2004. The Planning staff should continue to do what they do in the ordinary course of things. This has been outstanding for a long time and is not fair to the neighbors and the people who are having problems to just extend this item longer, so you better plan on a decision being made on the 22nd. The pressure is on and you have had eight or nine months to address these concerns. Mr. Levy noted that he or any member of the board are available to speak to any of the neighbors, they are welcome to come to the facility and make an appointment to sit down and address their concerns. We consider ourselves to be good neighbors. At • Commission inquiry, he agreed to leave the gate open. Vince DeNido a neighbor three doors down noted he is not happy that Page 25 of 29 file: //14:1Plancomm1200410617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 this item is being continued because of the parking being done on El Paseo. He asked that the enforcement be continued on this. Brian Carlson, General Manager of the Club, noted he has gone through revisions for a long time and he blames the City for the continuance. The staff report shows no respect or support from staff for what has been done so far. The reason we need the continuance for a study is to show that we don't need as many spaces on a daily, weekly or monthly basis for certain time periods. We do have large events, so we do need those spaces but we are perhaps adding valet parking to get those cars off the street. The gate access should be kept to business hours. During the hours we are closed, we do not have security measures into our marina or dry storage area. Anybody can drive in and take a boat away. I have no problem opening the gates during the business hours. At Commission inquiry, he noted he would not have a problem with opening up the reserved spaces for parking. Nick Clayton, owner of the office building across the street says he is the recipient of the overflow parking that occurs from the Club. We agree with staffs recommendation, who have done an excellent job in reviewing this issue, and agree with the conclusions. We hope you will restore the parking spaces that are missing and restore the reserved parking spaces and require the Club to keep the gate open. It will be extremely helpful to my operation across the street. It is an unsafe situation with the gate being there as people drive the wrong • way through our parking lot to drop off visitors to the club. Val Skoro, resident of Irvine Terrace noted the key issue is the Club using Irvine Terrace as their parking lot and that infringes on the residents and results in litter in the streets. The key point is they have to restore the parking on their own premises. Anything less than that would be unacceptable to the neighborhood. The gate needs to be removed. David Allison, 1629 Bayside Drive, noted that staff should take an aggressive role in enforcement. Ms. Temple commented that this is by far the most opportune time for the type of study that needs to be done because we are going to understand the use of the club parking during its peak season. Elizabeth Wardy, Judge Advocate of the Club, noted that there is another yacht club in the neighborhood that has parking on the street. We will do everything we can do alleviate concerns, but the parking problem is not necessarily all our fault. Dave Hook, 1617 Bayside Drive noted his concern with the parking and trash during special events. • Public comment was closed. Chairperson McDaniel asked if the maker of the motion would include Page 26 of 29 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0617.htm 07/1712004 • E Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 Page 27 of 29 the gate open during business hours only and the use of the reserved parking spaces be discontinued. Commissioner Tucker noted he has no objection to the Planning Director enforcing the existing use permit for the club. Whatever is feasible to enforce is up to the Planning Director. He agreed to the gate being open during business hours and the use of the reserved parking spaces being discontinued. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Toerge and Kiser Abstain: None SUBJECT: Mariner's Mile Landscape Amendment (PA2004 -104) ITEM NOX Commercially designated properties fronting on Coast PA2004 -104 Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and the Bay Bridge Recommended An amendment to Chapter 20.42 (Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan) related for approval to landscape requirements. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson McDaniel to approve Code Amendment 2004 -006 to the City Council by adopting the draft Resolution attached to the staff report. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Toerge and Kiser Abstain: None SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion ITEM NO.6 (PA2002 -265) PA2002 -265 600 St. Andrews Road Continued to Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Use 07/22/2004 Permit for the replacement and construction of additional buildings and a below grade parking garage. The General Plan Amendment involves an increase the maximum allowable building area with no change to the existing land use designation. The Zone Change would change the zoning district from R -2 & R -1 to GEIF to be consistent with the existing General Plan, Land Use Element designation. The Use Permit involves the alteration of existing buildings, replacement of the existing fellowship hall and classroom building and the file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 construction of a new mufti- purpose gymnasium and youth center. . The Use Permit also considers setting the maximum allowable building height of 40 feet for the two proposed buildings. Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to July 22, 2004. Motion was made by Chairperson McDaniel to continue this item to July 22, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Toerge and Kiser •xx ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that at the last meeting consideration of the amendment to Corporate Plaza was heard and approved, and the amendment to the Zoning Code to address the appeal and call for review procedure that was directed back to staff to come up with alternatives, and is Council adopted amendments to the Measure S guidelines in the City Council Policy. b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - there is a joint study session with the City Council on Tuesday the 22nd. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted that only update is the legislation going through Sacramento on second dwelling units. A letter in objection will be forwarded to the Senate as they continue their deliberations. g. Project status - no updates. • h. Requests for excused absences - none. Page 28 of 29 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS file: //H:\Plancomm1200410617.htm 07/17/2004 L� L, • Planning Commission Minutes 06/17/2004 Page 29 of 29 ADJOURNMENT: 9:40 p.m. I ADJOURNMENT MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0617.htm 07/17/2004