Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/18/1988COMMISSIONERS 9� REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: February 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO ALL 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 Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary * t Minutes of February 4. 1988 Minutes of Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the February 4, 2 -4 -88. All Ayes 1988, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non- agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the Agenda James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Agenda was posted on February 12, 1988, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuance: Request for Continuance James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant, Hal Woods, has requested that Item No. 7, Resubdivision No. 862, located at 2919 Cliff Drive, be continued to the March 10, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. * Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 7, eS Resubdivision No. 862, to the March 10, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONERS 4c .p yd Ga y .9C stv�so! . t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RO ALL INDEX A. General Plan Amendment No. 87 -3 (C) (Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements GPA 87 -3C of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Down .Coast Area to reflect the changes adopted by the County of (81173) LCP 13. Orange and the California Coastal Commission. (81174) APPROVED AND B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 13 (Public Hearin Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program so as to establish a land use plan for the Downcoast Newport Beach area. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and there being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at " this time. n Motion was made to recommend to City Council, General Plan Amendment No. 87 -3 (C) (Resolution No. 1173) and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 13 (Resolution No. 1174). In reference to staff's recommendation that an intensity limit be established for the neighborhood commercial Amended area, an amendment to the motion was made as follows: Page I -4.15, Section D.l.c.: "Neighborhood commercial facilities within specified residential planning areas will be permitted up to a maximum of 10 acres, and a maximum of 15,000 square feet per acre." The maker of the motion concurred with the recommended amendment to the motion. Commissioner Merrill stated his concerns regarding City Council policy related to the phasing of San Joaquin Hills Road in conjunction with Pelican Hill Road, and the completion of Pelican Hill Road from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and staff. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the construction of the proposed residential units adjacent to the two lane San Joaquin Hills Road /Pelican Hill Road intersection does not require the completion of Pelican • Hill Road to Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Dave Dmohowski representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission for clarification. He explained _2_ COMMISSIONERS o� 0 •f. to t� O,� N �� Alh 9,� =y0 . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RoMALL INDEX that The Irvine Company's proposed phasing as adopted by the County is consistent with the intent of the City's policy inasmuch as that policy was designed to prevent original through traffic coming up from Pacific Coast Highway via Pelican Hill Road and using San Joaquin Hills Road. He explained that there will not be a connection from San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road to Pacific Coast Highway before Pelican Hill Road goes through to Bonita Canyon. In reference to construction traffic, he further explained that there is a provision in the Local Coastal Program whereby the heavy equipment would be entering via a temporary road and not using San Joaquin Hills Road or Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that the residential areas would not be impacted by heavy construction traffic during the construction period. Chairman Pers6n commended The Irvine Company and the Friends of the Irvine Coast on their diligent work together on the proposed plan for the Downcoast area. • Motion was voted on to recommend to City Council, General Plan Amendment No. 87 -3(C), (Resolution No. 1173), and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 13 All Ayes (Resolution No. 1174). MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 1579 (Amended)(Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1579A permitted the establishment of an automotive sales and service facility on property located in the Newport Approved Place Planned Community. The proposed amendment involves a request to construct a four level parking structure on the property; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Lot 4, Tract No. 7694 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 87 -50 (Resubdivision No. 531) located at 1001 Quail Street, on the southwesterly corner of Quail Street, and Dove Street, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C • APPLICANT: Jim Slemons Investments, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 18, 1988 BG 9N A97p�g2 g� �y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RoEMALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and because no one appeared before the Planning Commission the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1579 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". All Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. 1579 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be • detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1579 as approved by the Planning Commission on February 3, 1972, and as amended December 15,. 1977, and November 19, 1987 shall remain in effect. 3. That the final layout of the parking structure shall meet the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, • safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. -4- COMMISSIONERS �O 9 9A °"y",.°y� << fit° 4V CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 ROLWCALL INDEX 5. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3293 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.3 i Request to permit the expansion of the existing Cano's UP 3293 Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment so as to increase the "net public area" of Approved the restaurant by converting an existing exterior deck to an outdoor dining area. The proposal also includes a request to convert a portion of the existing enclosed dining area to an outdoor patio dining area, the approval of live entertainment, consisting of a piano player /vocalist, and the approval of a lease for off - site parking purposes for a portion of the required off - street parking. LOCATION: A portion of Lot H, Tract No. 919, • located at 2241 West Coast Highway on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, easterly of Tustin Avenue (restaurant site); and Record of Survey 10 -27 located at 2500 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, easterly of Tustin Avenue (off -site parking lot) in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: El Torito Restaurant, Inc., Irvine OWNER: Ardell Investment Company, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Pat O'Daly appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. O'Daly stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Koppelman referred to Condition No. 3 in Exhibit "A ", providing that when live entertainment is performed. that all windows and doors, except when entering or leaving the restaurant facility, shall be closed. She stated that there have been previous • problems related to the restaurants who face the bay that has carried the sound across the bay to the residential areas. -5- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 18, 1988 9 9 s d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RoWbALL INDEX The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion • Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3293 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including staff's recommended deletion of Condition No. 9: "That 10 foot wide easements shall be granted to the City for unobstructed public access across the bay side of the parcel and between the public sidewalk on West Coast Highway and the bay. Said easements shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department." Staff explained that alterations and improvements to existing commercial buildings which constitute less than 10 percent of the existing buildings area are exempt from the requirement to dedicate public access to the bay, and inasmuch as the proposed addition constitutes only 5.86 percent of the existing building area, the subject project is exempt from the public access requirement. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3293 including the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" Yes including the deletion of Condition No. 9. MOTION CARRIED. Findines• 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and with the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls and utilities, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of any property within the proposed development. 5. Adequate off- street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 6. The off -site parking area is located so as to be useful to the proposed restaurant use. -6- COMMISSIONERS ydG �o9P-xo Ash �y o� z << \y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RO ALL INDEX 7. Parking on such off -site lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 8. That the applicant has into an appropriate .entered lease for the off -site parking spaces, which is of sufficient duration for the proposed development. 9. That the adjoining street is heavily, traveled and that the required public improvements, to include flared driveways, are necessary to provide improved access to the site for the proposed intensification of use. 10. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3293 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. • Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations except as provided in the .following conditions. 2. That the use of the outdoor dining area shall not be permitted beyond 11:00 p.m. nightly. 3. That when the restaurant establishes live entertainment, said activity shall be limited to a piano player with amplified voice only. When said live entertainment is being performed, all windows and doors (except when entering or leaving the restaurant facility), shall be closed. A licensed engineer practicing in acoustics shall certify to the Planning Department that the live entertainment will not increase the ambient noise levels beyond the boundaries of the subject property. 4. That the applicant shall provide a minimum of one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area" (138 spaces) for the subject restaurant. The applicant shall maintain a lease for the use of off -site parking adequate to • maintain this parking standard on property located at 2500 West Coast Highway. Such lease shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and -7- COMMISSIONERS 111T o �1�FpGiO� G9 flZQ�. _ y f z,', CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 R ALL INDEX the Planning Director, and a copy of said lease shall be filed in the Planning Department. 5. That the off -site parking area shall be used for employee parking only. 6. That the off - site *parking area shall be restriped so as to provide at least 81 parking spaces. Said plan shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. • 8. That no dancing shall be permitted in the restaurant unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this Use Permit. 9. Deleted. 10. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 11. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance. with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 12. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor. 13.1 That a trash compactor shall be installed in conjunction with the proposed development. 14. That the development standards pertaining to walls, • and utilities shall be waived. 15. That valet parking service shall be provided at all times during the restaurant operation. -8- COMMISSIONERS \N\Iro� sm 9j, vo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RoLWALL INDEX 16. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from West Coast Highway and adjoining properties. 17. That the public improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 18. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 19. That the existing drive aprons be reconstructed using the City Standard Flared Apron Std -166 -L along the West Coast Highway frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 20. That the existing entrance and exit signs located adjacent to West Coast Highway be relocated and the existing landscaping adjacent to the entrance • drives be maintained so as to provide required sight distance in conformance with City Std - 110 -L. 21. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 22. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3086 (Amended)(Public Hearing) Item No.4 UP3086A Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of a multiple use development on property located in the "Recreational and Marine Approved. Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. Said approval permitted the construction of a building that exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit • and exceeded the gross structural area limit of .5 times the' buildable area of the site. Said approval also permitted the establishment of a full service -9- COMMISSIONERS vy MINUTES February 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R61WALL INDEX restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment and the approval of an off -site parking agreement for a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. The proposed amendment includes a request to permit dancing in conjunction with the existing restaurant operation and to amend a previously established condition which limited the number of musicians associated with the live entertainment within the restaurant, so as to increase the number of permitted musicians. LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 84 -709 (Resubdivision No. 779), located at 2901 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, between Riverside Avenue and Newport Boulevard in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Senator D. G. Anderson, Honolulu, Hawaii . OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Debay requested that staff explain why the applicant had not constructed the sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements along Avon Street and Riverside Street as Condition No. 41 required when Use Permit No. 3086 was approved by the Planning Commission on April 19, 1984. Mr. Webb, City Engineer, explained that staff contacted the applicant regarding said improvements, and that the applicant indicated that they would construct said improvements after further construction activities had been completed. Mr. Webb recommended that the subject use permit not be activated until the improvements are completed. Chairman Pers6n referred to Condition No. 12 of the existing use permit which requires accessible parking spaces for restaurant patrons who wish to park their own automobiles. He stated that he had been advised that on occasion, customers who were visiting the subject restaurant without dinner reservations were denied access to self - parking. Chairman Pers6n stated that the Planning Commission's intent was that a restaurant patron would have access to the parking structure. Chairman Pers6n further stated that it had been called to his attention that employees were being charged for parking in the parking structure. -10- COMMISSIONERS %GX. 9NN� � 0 �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 R01WALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with, this item, and Mr. Joe Lancor appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Lancor stated that the applicant attempted to encourage the restaurant's employees to carpool by charging them for parking by the number of employees who were arriving at work together; however, he commented that the plan was abandoned because it was not successful. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pers6n and Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Lancor replied that the employees park in the off-site parking lot when the restaurant is busy; however, he said that when the restaurant is not busy the employees are permitted to park in the on -site parking structure. Mr. Lancor stated that the parking structure has an additional fifty parking spaces than what was required for restaurant parking. Chairman Pers6n pointed out that the Planning Commission is.not concerned where the employees park as long as they do not park on the streets. Mr. Lancor stated that the applicant experienced problems with the former valet service, and there also have been parking problems because the Chart House • Restaurant's sign was erected directly adjacent to the subject restaurant's driveway. He explained that a change in the management of the valet service has improved the service. Chairman Pers6n emphasized that his concern was that the automobiles waiting to.enter the restaurant's parking structure were backed up to the Arches Bridge, and that he was requesting that the applicant correct the situation. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Lancor described the area designated for the self - parking spaces within the parking structure. In reference to Condition No. 6 requiring a Cafe Dance Permit and requesting that the dance floor be increased to a minimum size of 400 square . feet unless said permit is approved for a smaller floor area, Mr. Lancor stated that the applicant is requesting a 12 foot x 12 foot dance floor on the third floor of the restaurant, and not a 400 square foot dance floor. In reference to Condition No. 10 stating that the number of musicians associated with the live entertainment shall not exceed eight persons, Mr. Lancor responded that only occasionally would the applicant be increasing the number to eight musicians, that the normal operation would require no more than three musicians. -11- COMMISSIONERS _ q2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RO ALL INDEX Mr. Lancor stated that the applicant is concerned with Condition No. 5 stating that the outdoor deck shall not be used after 11:00 p.m. daily. He stated that there is a view from the outdoor deck, that there will be no entertainment on the deck, that the loud speakers are inside the restaurant against the wall, and that the noise levels will be governed by Condition No. .3. Mr. Lancor stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of the foregoing concerns. Mr. Lancor referred to the aforementioned Condition No. 41 of the original use permit, and he stated that because the improvements will be completed, the applicant does not want the subject use delayed. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Cafe Dance Permit process is administered by the Business License Division under the supervision of the City Manager, and that many of the dance permits over the past ten years have received waivers for the size of the dance floors. Mr. Hewicker further stated that neither the Planning Commission or the Planning Department has • any authority over the issuance of the Cafe Dance Permit, that the Planning Department is stating that the applicant must comply with the Cafe Dance Permit and that all waivers must come from the Business License Division. Mr. Lancor stated that.the Avon Avenue /Riverside Avenue curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements should commence by the first of April, and then the construction should be in completed two weeks. Mr. Lancor emphasized that the unimproved site has not developed as the applicant had intended; however, he commented that the site currently provides an additional row of automobile parking spaces. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the .floor plan of the dance floor, Mr. Lancor described the area on the third floor where the proposed dance floor would be located, and he further described the design of the outer deck so that the noise would not project from the deck area across the.bay. Mr. Lancor stated that the applicant concurs with Condition No. 3 which requires that all windows and doors shall be closed, and that the noise levels shall not project beyond the boundaries of the subject property. In response to Commissioner Debay, Mr. Lancor commented • that since the restaurant has had entertainment they have not received any noise complaints. 12- COMMISSIONERS _ \9401\\2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 R60WALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker commented that the reason staff. has recommended the 11:00 p.m. closure of the outer deck is to be consistent with the conditions imposed on the other restaurants in the vicinity that face out onto the bay. He further commented that staff believed that people using the dance floor would also occupy the outer deck, and that patrons would be opening the outer doors while other customers are dancing. Chairman Pers6n pointed out that the outer deck will be completely surrounded by a glass enclosure, which would diffuse sound from going out towards the bay. Mr. Charles Pickup, Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pickup stated that.he does not oppose the dance floor, but he questioned if the music would be able to drift over to Cliff Drive. He stated that he has a concern about the lack of parking spaces available for post office customers and employees. He asked if the applicant would be willing to negotiate the Avon Street parking lot with the post office. Chairman Pers6n referred to the foregoing Condition No. 3 that . addresses noise levels. Chairman Pers6n further commented that he is aware that the post office has created a parking impact in the area; however, he said that the Planning Commission cannot require the applicant to dedicate his property for postal employee use. Mrs. Corrine Spence, 2910 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that her concern is that the amplified music could affect the residents of Newport Heights and Lido Isle. She requested that the subject application be reviewed ninety days after approval. Chairman Pers6n referred to the aforementioned Condition No. 3, and he explained that the condition would govern the noise level so that the noise would not impact the residential neighborhood any more than the noise does now. Chairman Pers6n referred to Condition No. 11 which allows.the Planning Commission to call back the subject use permit if the operation causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. Chairman Pers6n advised that the proposed project does not increase the size of the restaurant or add any more patrons. Mrs. Spence explained that the neighbors are attempting to preserve a neighborhood adjacent to Mariner's Mile, and that they also are • concerned that the view corridors were not developed along Mariner's Mile as they were originally approved. Chairman Pers6n stated that every attempt is being made. -13- COMMISSIONERS 9ti iN �mG�9(C � a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RO ALL INDEX to preserve the view corridors along Mariner's Mile. Mrs. Gail Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive, President of the Newport Heights Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission to express the Association's concerns regarding the restaurant's potential amended hours of operation, and the off- street parking requirements depending upon the variety of uses and the applicable hours of operation relating to the subject development. She stated that the Community Association's primary concern is to mitigate the parking created by the impact that development is going to cause in the Mariner's Mile area of West Coast Highway. In reference to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ", Mrs. Demmer stated that the applicant has not satisfied all of the conditions of the original use permit; that the Planning Commission designate specific hours for entertainment; that three musicians and not eight musicians would be satisfactory; that they support the 120 square foot dance floor; and that the use permit shall not be issued until the public improvements have been completed on Avon Street and Riverside Avenue. • In response to the concerns of the Newport Heights Community Association, Mr. Hewicker referred to the restaurant's hours of operation, and he advised that the entertainment hours were approved when the original use permit was approved, and that staff has requested that the hours of operation be reduced from 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m, on the open deck. Mr. Hewicker advised that the on -site parking of the subject development currently provides employee parking; however, when the subject building is fully leased the employees will be utilizing the off -site parking area. In reference to Condition No. 5, Commissioner Koppelman indicated that the parking requirements were set up on a parking formula so that when the building is completely occupied, the parking is balanced with the hours of operation. Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that Condition No. 3 controls the noise emanating from the restaurant and that he did not believe anything would be accomplished by furthering a limit on the restaurant's operation. Mr. Don Williams, 2936 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his concerns regarding the view corridor and the employee off -site parking lot. In response to the questions regarding the, view corridor being used for parking spaces, Mr. Hewicker explained that the use permit approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council does allow the side yard area to have four parking spaces when the area is not required -14- COMMISSIONERS A � 0 C� y� ����OAA9 9 -P G -P .019�f � 0 _ 9Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RO ALL INDEX as an access to the boat yard. Chairman Pers6n explained the use of the off -site parking lot, and he emphasized that the Planning Commission's primary concern is to have as many automobiles on -site as possible. Senator Anderson, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Senator Anderson addressed the concerns regarding the off -site parking lot and he emphasized that the off -site parking lot would be only used for employee parking in accordance with the original use permit, and the lease agreement with the property owner. He explained that the temporary fence was around the parking lot only to control the use, and that the fence remains open. Senator Anderson commented that the experiment to encourage employees to carpool was not successful. He stated that his request for partial underground parking on Avon Street was withdrawn because of the opposition to the development. Senator Anderson emphasized that a 'for sale' sign was posted on the Avon Street property for the sole purpose of • assessing the value of the property. He stated that he is only requesting a 12 foot by. 12 foot temporary dance floor that would be used only when the need arises, and that they are not asking for a change in the hours of operation. He explained that of the five musical groups that entertain at the restaurant during the week, four of the groups number three musicians and the fifth group has seven musicians who do not play rock 'n roll music. Senator Anderson stated that before this amended use permit came to the Planning Commission, they conducted a five week study relating to the amplified music and they never received one complaint. He said that the music could not be heard from Lido Isle, from the Arches Bridge, from the adjacent condominiums, or from across West Coast Highway. He emphasized that if the outer deck could not be used that it would create an economical hardship on the restaurant. He said that the outdoor patio does not provide music or dining. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time.. * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3086 (Amended) Motion subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including an amendment to Condition No. 5 that would delete "..except that the outdoor deck shall not be used at 11:00 p.m. daily;.. ". -15- COMMISSIONERS K C � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RoLWALL INDEX Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion because there have been good results controlling the noise emanating from the restaurant, and the patrons would be able to make use of the glass enclosed outdoor deck so they could enjoy the view of the bay. Commissioner Debay stated that she would support the motion, and she referred to Condition No. 11 which would allow the Planning Commission to call back the use permit if it was. determined that the operation would be detrimental to the community. She stated that she would support the 120 square foot dance floor. Commissioner Debay commented that the neighbors would have heard the music when the applicant was providing the noise study if they were ever going to because the music was very loud within the restaurant. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the motion on the basis that the restaurant should be given every opportunity to receive the full value of what has been approved. He supported Condition No. 5, as amended, and the 120 square foot dance floor; however, he commented that he would agree that the entitlements permitted under the subject use permit should not be conducted until such time as the applicant completes the public improvements adjacent to the off -site parking location as stated in Condition No. 8. Commissioner Pomeroy questioned the applicant's desire to maximize his investment by violating the original use permit inasmuch as he conducted an illegal amplified sound study to see if the noise disturbed anyone. Chairman Persdn stated that he would support the motion, and that because of the Newport Height's Community Association, the conditions of approval are more than what would be a typical request to install a normal 120 square foot dance floor. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3086 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in All Ayes Exhibit "A" including amended Condition No. 5. MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the existing and proposed restaurant operation is consistent with the Land Use Element of the • General Plan and with the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. -16- COMMISSIONERS y�G - 9N 99"xo 9 9, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 R ALL INDEX 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the existing and proposed restaurant operation. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3086 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the subject restaurant shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan except as provided in the following conditions. 2. That the applicant shall satisfy all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3086. 3. That when any live entertainment is being performed within the restaurant, all windows and doors (except when entering or leaving the restaurant), shall be closed. A licensed engineer practicing in acoustics shall certify to the Planning Department that the operation of the restaurant will not increase the ambient noise levels beyond the boundaries of the subject property. 4. That the nighttime parking requirement for the third floor portion of the restaurant shall be based on one parking space for each 35 sq. ft. of "net public area" and the second floor portion of the restaurant shall be based on one parking space for each 40 sq.ft, of "net public area ". The total nighttime parking requirement for the restaurant shall be 256 spaces and the total daytime parking requirement shall be 132 spaces, including 4 car parking credit for boat slips used exclusively by the restaurant. 5. That the hours of operation for the various portions of the restaurant shall be as follows: third floor portion including interior dining area, -17- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yq 'm0 0 February 18, 1988 \\\:\ _ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROOMALL INDEX exterior deck and cocktail lounge, 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Sundays and holidays; the second floor portion 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Sunday and holidays. 6. That a Cafe Dance Permit for the proposed dance floor shall be approved by the City. The dance floor shall be increased to a minimum size of 400 sq.ft. unless said permit is approved for a smaller floor area. 7. That the valet operation shall be conducted in a manner which shall not block traffic on West Coast Highway and further, should access to the site be temporarily blocked due to vehicles entering the valet staging area, valets shall be required to motion vehicles past. the driveway entrance so as not to block traffic within West Coast Highway. . 8. That the entitlements permitted under this use permit amendment shall not be conducted until such time as the applicant completes the public improvements adjacent to the off -site parking location, as required in conjunction with Use Permit No. 3086. 9. That the applicant shall provide a sign at a location acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer which identifies and directs restaurant patrons to the available self - parking spaces on -site. 10. That the number of musicians associated with the live entertainment shall not exceed eight persons. 11. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit,. upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 12. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -18- COMMISSIONERS _ FZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 ROMALL INDEX The Planning Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Use Permit No. 3290 (Public Hearing) Item No.S UP3290 Request to permit the establishment of a take -out restaurant facility specializing in muffins and other baked food items and soft drinks on property located in Approved Lido Marina Village in the C -1 District. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 1, Tract No. 1235, located at 3431 Via Oporto, on the westerly side of Via Oporto, between Via Lido and Central Avenue, in Lido Marina Village. ZONE: C -1 -H • APPLICANTS: Miroslava and Jordan Isailovic, Anaheim Hills OWNER: Traweek Investment Fund #12, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, 550 C Newport Center Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King reviewed the subject application. He stated that the take -out restaurant will not have seating inside or outside of the take -out restaurant; that they will not serve alcoholic beverages; and that they will provide three parking spaces for their employees. Mr. King stated that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A ". In reference to concerns expressed by the Police Department, Mr. King explained that Lido Marina Village management has stated that they intend to control illegal parking by contacting and assisting the business owners to enforce the parking. In response to Commissioner Koppelman's question regarding the subject take -out restaurant's proposed deliveries, Mr. King replied that no additional personnel would be required to deliver the baked goods. • James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the staff report which indicates that staff has interpreted the -19- COMMISSIONERS q ,p ,j0�0 Or y�G� t9� 99'oc q y� 9y .c !r�� Ash vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RO ALL INDEX subject take -out restaurant as a bakery, and that the only item that requires a use permit is that the r applicants are requesting soft drinks. He disagreed with the report's comment by stating that this is a business which is selling a singular type of baked goods which by definition is not a bakery. He defined a bakery as a business that merchandises a variety of baked goods. He commented that this is a specialty business that caters to selling muffins for consumption. Mr. Hewicker stated that the Planning Department and the City Attorney's office are conducting discussions regarding the parking structure that is available to the Lido Marina Village and Via Lido shops. Chairman Pers6n stated that the subject application will not be altering the status quo of the parking structure by waiving the 11 parking spaces as requested. Mr. Sandy Wilford, property owner on Via Lido, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Lido businesses. Mr. Wilford briefly reported the early development of the adjacent parking structure. Mr. • Wilford requested that the Planning Commission defer a decision regarding the subject application until after the interested parties representing Lido Marina Village, the Lido Shops, and the City have met to resolve the dispute that has risen regarding the parking structure. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Chairman Pers6n stated that the concerns regarding the aforementioned parking structure have been discussed for over two years, and that there is an attempt to resolve the issue within the next few months. Mr. Doug Dreyer, property owner at 3416 Via Lido, and a partner of the German Home Bakery located in Lido Marina Village appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dreyer referred to take -out restaurants currently serving muffins and baked goods that are located within Lido Marina Village, and he questioned the proposed location of another take -out restaurant serving muffins. He commented that his.office faces the back door.of.the subject take -out restaurant, and that he is familiar with the traffic and parking in the alley and on Via Oporto, and the enforcement by the Police Department and the Lido Marina Village management. He referred to the many vacancies within Lido Marina Village and the Lido shops; however, he said that when those vacancies are • filled that there could be a severe parking shortage. Mr. Dreyer questioned the location of the take -out restaurant's wash out area. -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ya ee�o N0m February 18, 1988 AG n 9�py$9y 9,t, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RoLWALL INDEX Chairman PersGn stated that the Planning Commission does not interfere with matters concerning the number of types of businesses leased to various individuals. He addressed the parking concerns and the number of vacancies within the Lido shopping area. Mr. King reappeared before the Planning Commission, and he addressed the status of the legal dispute between the interested parties regarding the parking structure.. He stated that he contacted the City Attorney's office prior to submitting the subject application, and that the applicant received approval to proceed with the use permit. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there is no legal prohibition against proceeding with the use permit. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3290 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion All Ayes voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and with the Local Coastal Program and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, landscaping, and a portion of the required parking will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3290 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the • neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. -21- COMMISSIONERS "�G9\91 0 _ 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RO ALL INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved floor plan. 2. That three (3) off - street parking spaces shall be provided for employees. 3. That all employees of the facility .shall park in the Lido Marina Village parking structure. 4. That the development standards pertaining to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities, parking lot illumination, and a portion of the required parking spaces (13 spaces) shall be waived. 5. That operation of the facility shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 6. That no cooking or preparation of food other than baked goods and beverages shall be permitted unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission at a later date. Said amendment could require the addition of grease interceptors or exhaust fans. 7. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold on the premises unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. 8. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Via Oporto, adjoining properties and the alley. 10. That the sidewalk on Via Oporto shall be kept clean and regularly maintained. Said sidewalk shall be swept, vacuumed, or washed in such a manner that any debris or wastewater does not enter the.storm drain system or the bay. 11. That no seating shall be provided in the facility unless an amendment to this use permit, is approved by the Planning Commission. • 12. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided is such a way as to allow direct drainage -22- COMMISSIONERS \91%00 Ask m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RoLWALL INDEX into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 13. That a trash compactor be provided in the restaurant facility. 14. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit upon . a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 15. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • A Local Coastal Program Amendment No 12 (Public Item No.6 Hearin LCP No.12 Request to amend the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan so as to redesignate the subject property from 8861 "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Low Density Residential ". Continued to AND 3 -24 -88 B Resubdivision No 861 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide property located in the R -1 -B District so as to establish a parcel of land for single family residential purposes. The proposal also includes a request to approve a proposed grading plan of the site so as to establish grade for the purpose of measuring building height; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Block 96, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3841 Ocean Birch Drive, on the southerly side of Ocean Bi -rch Drive between the southerly terminus of Spyglass Hill Road and Sea • Bell Circle, in the Spyglass Ridge residential area. 23- COMMISSIONERS tiq ��O NO�m mG F 9m 99'OO vy 9y� 4y �� �o _ q7G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RO ALL INDEX ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT: James C. Manning, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Tentative Tract Map regarding the Spyglass Ridge Subdivision was recorded in 1970 and the Final Map was recorded in 1971. He explained that when the Tentative Tract Map was approved there.were two lots shown at the subject location; however, he said that when the Final Map was submitted to the Planning Commission and the City Council, the two lots were deleted by The Irvine Company. Mr. Hewicker referred to the Spyglass Ridge Community Association's petition indicating that 37 out of 40 households in the Association are opposed to the resubdivision. Mr. Hewicker further referred to a letter submitted by Peter E. Racobs, Attorney representing the Spyglass Ridge Community Association, dated February 17, 1988, indicating the Association's opposition to the resubdivision. In response to questions posed in the letter regarding the Negative Declaration, Mr. Hewicker explained that the construction of a single family dwelling is categorically exempt under CEQA; however, he said that the creation of a parcel on which the single family dwelling would be built is not exempt. He further explained that if a development is not exempt from CEQA, then a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report would be required, and because staff did not identify any impacts that they felt required an EIR, staff required an Initial Study checklist. In reference to the Local Coastal Program, Mr. Hewicker explained that the zoning on the property was established in 1970 when the Subdivision was approved. He stated that the Local Coastal Program which designates the area as Recreational and Open Space was not approved by the City or the Coastal Commission until 1982. In reference to establishment of grade of 420 feet, Mr. Hewicker explained that the highest grade on the property is currently 430 feet; however, the proposed development would lower the grade approximately 10 feet. 24 COMMISSIONERS yA aoN��d 9 9� Ask 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RdIWALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker stated that staff is not aware of any public view that would be impaired by the proposed development on the lot. He referred to Condition No. 18 which states that the applicant shall record a covenant providing for a view corridor across the easterly 55 feet of the site. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the Local Coastal Program's Recreation and Open Space, Mr. Hewicker described how the coastal boundary was drawn, and he explained that the City's opinion was that the open space area next to the developed area adjacent to Spyglass Hill was in the Coastal Zone. He stated that no one anticipated that once the Subdivision was recorded that there would be . another proposal requesting to add one or two lots in the area. Mr. Hewicker added that the addition of one single family building site would not be a detriment to the open space in the area. Commissioner Koppelman inquired if there is access to Buck Gully in this area, and Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that none of the accesses are dedicated public • accesses to date. He explained that the property is owned by The Irvine Company, and he stated that in the plans for the Downcoast development he was certain that all or a portion of the area is dedicated for open space. Commissioner Koppelman asked if there are accesses other than the subject area that are not occupied by residences, where there is public access to Buck Gully? Mr. Hewicker replied that there are areas where access could be taken; however, he pointed out that they are all currently.chained, locked, or fenced. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the Community Association's request that the subject site be developed as a park, Chairman Pers6n and Commissioner Winburn could not recall that the Planning Commission had ever discussed the site to be designated as a park. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jim Manning, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Manning presented a brief history of the subject property including The Irvine Company's early concerns regarding soil problems relating to the site. He said that The Irvine Company concluded that the generation of two lots as opposed to potential soils problems was not worth the risk and so they abandoned the idea of the two lots. Mr. Manning described the extensive soils testing that he -25- COMMISSIONERS _ qZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RO ALL INDEX contracted, and that those results substantiated that the property has no movement and can be built upon. Mr. Manning presented a slide presentation. He discussed how the nob of the hill would be flattened; the contours of the slopes; that the pad will be seven feet higher than the street curb; the house will be 84 feet from the center line of the front door to the back of the sidewalk; that the house will be constructed as one and two stories; that the property will increase the visual impact of open space; that the nearby open space includes Buck Gully and three parks; that he concurs with staff's request that a 55 foot view corridor shall be maintained and that he will not build higher than the curb in said view corridor; the yard setbacks; that there is no cause for an EIR; that the General Plan Amendment established in May 1973 shows the property as R -1; that in May 1982 the Local Coastal Program was approved; and that there is no direct access to Buck Gully from the subject property. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the vegetation that was removed from the subject property, Mr. Manning explained that the vegetation was removed when they were conducting soils tests. Mr. Manning commented that he would replace the vegetation if necessary. Mr. Peter Racobs, attorney representing the Spyglass Ridge Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Racobs stated that the proposed development has serious environmental implications. Mr. Racobs explained that The Irvine Company chose not to develop the subject two lots in 1971 because of the potential soils problems; that there is a potential for soils movement; that the parcel has elevations that range from 363 feet to 430 feet with very substantial slopes; that there have been slope and soil problems. on Spyglass Hill; and that there is an earthquake fault in the immediate vicinity. He referred to the Environmental Checklist Form, regarding the unstable earth conditions and geologic hazards, and he stated that the "no" answers are incorrect, and they should not be the basis for a Negative Declaration exempting the subject project from CEQA. He stated that the accumulative affect of the subject project is going to put a very significant impact on the environment in the area, and that an EIR is appropriate, necessary and required by law. Mr. Racobs stated that if the applicant is confident that the slope is solid and that -26- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES . yA `February 18, 1988 A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RO ALL INDEX the hill will not move,. then an FIR will reflect same, and he requested an independent expert's opinion. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Racobs referred to Condition No. 11 requesting "that grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based upon recommendations of a Soils Engineer and Engineer - Geologist...", and he commented that the engineers employed by the developer may not be objective in their analysis and he recommended that independent consultants prepare the plans. Mrs. Louise Sherk, 3830 Ocean Birch Drive, an original homeowner, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the project for the following reasons: that The Irvine Company assured the homeowners that the subject site was not buildable and that the site would remain as an open area; that the vegetation on the site has been removed and not replaced; that there would be an impact on her view from her home and the project would have an adverse impact on Ocean Birch Drive and Spy Glass Hill Road; and that .there is only one • ingress /egress to Ocean Birch Drive and that the proposed project would add additional parking to a busy intersection. Mrs. Emily Hackler, 1616 Sea Bell Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the proposed project, and she presented a petition signed by 14 children who live in the area stating that they would like to have the subject site preserved as a park. She stated concerns that the adjacent streets were too dangerous for the children to cross alone to go to nearby parks; that the homeowners would lose the open space area; that the applicant has objected to joining the Homeowner's Association and that the homeowners feel that the applicant should participate in the responsibilities of the community; that the adjacent neighbors would lose their privacy; and that she recommended an environmental .study because of the potential slides. Commissioner Koppelman and Mr. Hewicker discussed the application to establish grade. Mrs. Judy Franke, 1606 Sea Bell Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the proposed project • because she said that the site was intended to be an open space area; that the proposed. dwelling is within the subdivision entrance, but the structure would not 27- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 4� a o� ;�gC•4� February 18, 1988 G�y� Noyp�C 2yo .c CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLWALL INDEX conform to the subdivision requirements including design, building height, and landscaping; that the open space area is beneficial to the homeowners; and that the neighborhood children use the subject site as a recreation area. Mrs. Jane Swafford, an original homeowner in Spyglass Ridge, came before the Planning Commission to oppose the proposed project. She explained that the subject site was proposed for recreational land, and that the homeowners have landscaped and maintained the site; that the site is at the entrance to Spyglass Ridge; that the children do not cross the adjacent streets because of the heavy traffic; and that the homeowners are concerned with the expansion plans of San Joaquin Hills Road and that they are considering alternatives to protect their subdivision from the impact of noise and traffic. Mr. Manning reappeared before the Planning Commission in rebuttal to the aforementioned public testimony. In reference to the removal of the vegetation, he explained that they received permission from The Irvine Company to • conduct the extensive soils tests; however, they would replace the vegetation if necessary. Referring to Condition No. 11 regarding soils engineers, Mr. Manning explained that the engineers are licensed and he did not believe that the engineers would jeopardize their licenses by submitting inaccurate reports. In reference to a park, Mr. Manning commented that the property contains 1.07 acres, and he explained the size of a pad that would be required to develop a park, since almost one -third of the property is natural slope. In reference to the aesthetics of the proposed project, Mr. Manning stated that he would agree to architectural control by the Planning Commission. He said that The Irvine Company has placed a set of CC&R's on the property, and that the custom .lot declaration has architectural controls that are greater than the .Spyglass Ridge CC&R's. He explained that The Irvine Company's architectural group will be reviewing the plans to be certain that the dwelling blends in with the community. The public hearing was closed at this time. In response to concerns expressed during the public hearing, Mr. Hewicker stated that he did not know what limitation that the Planning Commission would have to require that the subject parcel be annexed to the Spyglass Ridge Homeowner's Association with the proviso that reasonable approval of that annexation to the Homeowner's Association would not unreasonably be -28- COMMISSIONERS �m °9y9t'"oy�c��0 _ q2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RO ALL INDEX withheld. Mr. Hewicker.pointed out the numerous reasons why the homeowners would want the applicant to become a part of the Homeowner's Association. He stated that the applicant is concerned that if the Planning Commission would attach a condition, then the Homeowner's Association would withhold authorization to . try to prevent the applicant from developing the lot. Mr. Hewicker addressed the neighbors' concerns regarding privacy; the homeowners' concerns regarding the children crossing Spy Glass Hill Road; and in reference to the stock pile of dirt left over after the soil had been tested and graded, he advised that this is natural dirt that was there at the time the subdivision was built. Commissioner Merrill referred to the access to Buck Gully at the termination of San Joaquin Hills Road, and he stated that there is access for pedestrians only. He commented that after the completion of San Joaquin Hills Road, he believed that the public should have easier access to Buck Gully. He stated that it would appear that the proposed project would create "spot zoning" in a community of single family dwellings with approximately 7,000 square foot lots. Commissioner Merrill commented on the amount of dirt that would be required to make a fill so as to develop the proposed project. He recommended that if the proposed site is developed, that the site be developed into two single family lots. Commissioner Merrill referred to his previous involvement with the development of the area, and he maintained that it would be a good idea if the site would . be reclassified Planned Community, Recreational. He suggested that if the site is developed that the grade should be lowered. He suggested that the elevation of the lot should be closer to the grade of the street to conform with the other lots in the area.. In conclusion, Commissioner Merrill stated that the proposed project should be viewed as a part of the community. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the need to import the fill dirt, Commissioner Merrill replied that there would be no need for fill to develop a pad area and the project would not be elevated. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the applicant would be more concerned about the soil condition than the neighbors, and he stated that the problems could be resolved between the homeowners and • the applicant in a satisfactory manner. _29 COMMISSIONERS 9�9e. Gyy9 oy \Irlr � C y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 R61WALL INDEX Commissioner Koppelman, explained that in addition to reasons expressed by Commissioner Merrill and Commissioner Pomeroy, she would recommend that the applicant agree to a continuance so as to meet with the homeowners about becoming a member of the Homeowner's Association, an adjustment of grade so as to protect the neighbors' privacy, and to request that The Irvine x Company dedicate access to Buck Gully. Motion was made Motion to continue Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 12 and Resubdivision No. 861. Chairman Pers6n stated that he would support the motion if he could receive an indication from the applicant and the homeowners that they would all be willing to meet and talk over some of the foregoing concerns. Mr. Manning reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he has met with the adjacent homeowners and the Spyglass Ridge Homeowner's Association Board of Directors to discuss the entry into the subdivision, and architectural control. He emphasized that he is not opposed to working with and participating in the Homeowner's Association, but the Homeowner's Association • could abuse the architectural control. He explained that he would agree if the ground rules are that the lot could be developed so as to blend with the community, and the entry treatment is done correctly; however, he said that if it is an issue of property rights then he does not think that they should talk. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the applicant submit soils data to the City's Grading Engineer. Commissioner Merrill commented that the applicant would not receive a final geo- technical report until after the work has been completed because during the course of grading, an undetermined problem could prevent construction, and he requested that the applicant submit the most recent geo- technical report. Mr. Michael Gering, 5000 Birch Street, attorney for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Gering stated that the applicant would agree to a continuation; however, he emphasized that the homeowners must enter into discussion with an open mind. He stated that if the homeowners will not agree to any development on -site, then the applicant would prefer that the Planning Commission make a decision. Chairman Pers6n stated that Mr. Racobs indicated that the homeowners would be willing to enter into a discussion. -30- COMMISSIONERS yBG� 999 \01 `SC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 ROLWALL INDEX Motion was voted on to continue Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 12 and Resubdivision No. 861 to the March 24, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. All Ayes The Planning Commission recessed at 10:30 p.m. and reconvened at 10:45 p.m. Resubdivision No. 862 (Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to resubdivide two existing parcels of land into 8862 four parcels for single family residential development; and the acceptance of an environmental document. Continued to LOCATION: A portion of Lot D, Tract No. 919, 3 -10 -88 located at 2919 Cliff Drive, on the southerly side of Cliff Drive, between Santa Ana Avenue and Riverside Avenue, in Newport Heights. ZONES: R -1 and R -3 APPLICANT: Hal Woods, Costa Mesa OWNER: Dr. Khosro Khaloghi, Costa Mesa ENGINEER: Millet & Associates Inc., Irvine Motion * James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to All Ayes the March 10, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the March 18, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. i -31- COMMISSIONERS _ 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18,1988 RO ALL INDEX Amendment No. 661 (Public Hearing) Item No.8 A661 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to clarify the — provision that outdoor sales or display of merchandise Denied in commercial districts require the securing of a use permit, unless specifically permitted by the Code. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach i James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the purpose of the subject Amendment is to put in writing what has been the practice and policy of the City during the past 18 years, which has been an attempt to curtail the display of outdoor merchandise unless the Municipal Code has specifically permitted the interested party to do so, or it has been permitted under a use permit. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Hewicker stated that several use permits have been granted to display merchandise outdoors, including the display of boats. He commented that there are merchants who have had an indoor retail sales business who have . displayed their merchandise outside. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman and Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker stated that special events such as the Corona del Mar Christmas Walk are approved by the Business License Department under "Special Events." He explained that a Special Events Permit takes approximately two to four weeks to process depending upon the request. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the Business License Supervisor processes the Special Events Permit, and that the ruling is that the interested party is allowed two special events per year. She explained that any more than two events could be considered an. operational characteristic which would require a use permit. The public hearing was opened at this time. George Follman, 430 West Coast Highway, owner of UP Sports, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Follman emphatically stated that he was opposed to taking down his flags that represent wind indicators on his building, and to removing his outdoor display of windsurfers that were located on private property. Mr. Follman spoke on behalf of the numerous merchants who have businesses adjacent to his business who have to pay -32- COMMISSIONERS �0 ti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 R0 ALL INDEX high rent, and he stated that the merchants need to display their merchandise outdoors so as to advertise their businesses. Mr. Follman stated that he would not object to applying for applicable permits if the fee would be reasonable. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Ms. Korade stated that there is an Ordinance that applies to the C -1, C -R, and SP -5 Districts that prohibit outdoor sales establishments without the approval of use permits, unless specifically permitted by Code. Ms. Korade stated that the Planning Department has interpreted outdoor sales establishments during the past 18 years to include merchants who display merchandise outside of their business. She explained that as a point of clarification, there should be an additional prohibition to specifically address outdoor display of merchandise subject to securing a use permit. Ms. Korade stated that there is currently not an Ordinance that prohibits a display of outdoor merchandise in front of an indoor sales establishment. Mr. Hewicker explained that the interpretation of the Zoning Code by • the Planning Commission, City Council and staff has been that those types of activities are prohibited under existing Ordinances unless specifically permitted. Commissioner Pomeroy asked if an indoor business with an outdoor display area that does not encroach on any public right -of -way is allowed by interpretation of the existing Ordinance? Mr. Hewicker stated that if the merchant wants to have an outdoor display of merchandise, he must come before the Planning Commission for an approval of a use permit unless the outdoor use is permitted. He explained that the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan permits outdoor yacht sales and marine- related activities without securing a use permit. Mr. Hewicker stated that an outdoor boat display would be allowed at the subject UP Sports site by use permit only. Mr. Laycock explained that the subject site of UP Sports is located in the C -1 -H District. In response to Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Hewicker explained that there has been no change in the interpretation of the Municipal Code during the past 18 years, but during the past few months, the City Attorney's Office has recommended that the Municipal Code be amended to clarify said interpretation. • Commissioner Di Sano referred to a previously approved use permit that permitted a flower cart in front of the Balboa Pavilion, which is merchandise sold off of the -33- COMMISSIONERS \1n G�_ C�q2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 RoLWALL INDEX open display. Ms. Deborah Raeber, owner of the Lido Bookshop on Via Oporto, a public street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Raeber stated that she has owned the book store for 9 years; that the book store opens on to the sidewalk; she was not approached that she was illegally displaying her merchandise; that the aesthetics of the outdoor display represents a European newsstand; and that Lido Marina Village is conducive to a casual, relaxed atmosphere. Commissioner Di Sano commented that Lido Marina Village is an example of a European market, and that the merchants set their merchandise out each day. Ms... Raeber stated that she sets her merchandise out each morning and takes the merchandise indoors at night. Mr. Hewicker explained that a use permit would be required to display merchandise outdoors on private property in Lido Marina Village and an Encroachment Permit would be required to display merchandise outdoors • on public property. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the proposed Ordinance, Mr. Hewicker replied that the use permit revenue would be used to process the application, and that the conditions of approval of the use permit would govern the outdoor displays. Ms. Korade clarified the purpose of the subject Ordinance.. She explained that during the past two years the City Attorney's office has been directed to take a more active role in Code Enforcement. She stated that if after the City's Zoning and Building inspectors have written citations and the individuals cited have not corrected the problems that they were cited for, then the City Attorney's Office becomes involved by holding an office conference and if that does not resolve the problem, then the City Attorney's Office files a lawsuit. She stated that there was a situation within the past two years when one merchant had two stores, one located on the Balboa Peninsula and one on Balboa Island that was displaying balloons, wind signs, and clothing, and the merchant refused to remove the displays. She explained that the City filed a lawsuit, and the defense attorney claimed that he did not think that there was an actual prohibition within the City for this type of • outdoor display of merchandise. Ms. Korade commented that the lawsuit was resolved, and the merchant agreed to comply. -34- COMMISSIONERS Ash vy MINUTES February 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RcLWALL INDEX In response to Chairman Pers6n, Ms.. Korade replied that the outdoor display on Balboa Island was located on private property and the outdoor display on Balboa Peninsula was located on public property. She explained that after reviewing and discussing the Ordinance with the Planning Department, that the City Attorney's Office became aware of the Planning Department's interpretation of outdoor sales establishments. Ms. Korade commented that the City Attorney's Office believed that there was a need to clarify and codify the interpretation in order to enforce the interpretation. Mr. Steve Gorman, 2539 Via Oporto, owner of Art Dimensions, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Gorman stated that he displays his merchandise in the open on private property. He explained the unique design of Via Oporto, that the maintenance of the street is paid for by the merchants, and that because of the location of his store, the Village management stated that he could display his merchandise on the walls in front of his store if the merchandise was displayed on private property and there was no law against it. He requested that the law be clarified, that the law should be reviewed on an individual case, and that he should not have to apply for a use permit, but if required, he would comply with the law. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, replied that public notices regarding the subject public hearing were sent to individuals who had previously received letters regarding their outdoor displays, and to all of the Business Associations and adjoining Homeowners Associations in the City. Mr. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. He related a personal experience that he had regarding an outdoor display. Mr. Soffer addressed the interpretation of the Ordinance by the City Attorney's office and by the Planning Department. r Commissioner Debay and Mr. Hewicker discussed the fee and the longevity of a use permit. Mr. Howard Silver, owner of two tee shirt companys on Marine Avenue on Balboa Island, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Silver stated that he displays • the tee shirt merchandise on the doors of his properties. Mr. Silver explained that his tee shirt displays are aesthetically pleasing. He referred to a -35- COMMISSIONERS o Qs 0 y t^ tq O,Q N �m 9y? 4y lr o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 R ALL INDEX petition that was submitted to the City which stated that 45 merchants opposed the proposed Amendment. He stated that he could not afford $826.00 to apply for a use permit. Mr. Silver questioned the interpretation of said Ordinance. Mr. Silver commented that the Balboa Island merchants no longer have a sidewalk sale because they cannot afford the one million dollar insurance policy. Mr. Silver recommended that members of Business Associations throughout the City meet with staff so as to work out a way that the law could be enforced and that would be acceptable to all of the merchants who are displaying merchandise on private property. Commissioner Di Sano supported Mr. Silver's suggestion. Mr. Silver recommended a policy that would enable the merchant to inform the City how the merchandise is displayed. Chairman Pers6n stated that the Planning Commission would have to become involved with subjective situations to grant use permits, and what basis a use permit could be approved. Chairman Pers6n suggested that instead of applying for use permits through the Planning Commission that perhaps the Business License Division could issue . • permits with certain conditions. Mr. Ray Lowy, a merchant on Marine Avenue on Balboa Island for 20 years, came before the Planning Commission to state that he had been displaying his pictures on the side of his store for the past twenty years. He commented that depending upon the interpretation of the Ordinance, there are thousands of violations throughout the City. The public hearing was closed at this time. * Chairman Pers6n made a motion to not recommend approval Motion of Amendment No. 661, and to direct staff to come back to the Planning Commission with an Ordinance that would be more applicable to both the business community and to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Pomeroy questioned the policy of the staff during the past 18 years, and he said that the community has a climate in a resort -type atmosphere that encourages the exact type of thing that the Ordinance would make very expensive, and to require a use permit would be very subjective that would require a long hearing process. He opined that there is a fundamental problem in the first place and the Planning Commission • should not be addressing the matter at all. He commented that there should be some simple way for a businessman to conduct his business with displays in the -36- COMMISSIONERS X0\0-1\rr 0 a 9�m9it GZZ�� , _ 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 ROMMALL INDEX open and at the same time for the City to enforce flagrant violations that would not be hurting the small businessman. Chairman PersBn stated that it would seem simple that the activities should be prohibited on public property without an Encroachment'Permit. He said that it is just not the expense of a use permit, but it includes all of its requirements such as the 20 sets of plans that would have to be submitted to the Planning Department for the application. Commissioner Koppelman referred to the Sign Ordinance that governs the display of banners, etc. She stated that she was envisioning an encroachment on public . sidewalks in reference to the subject Ordinance instead of the display of merchandise on a person's own property. She referred to situations that have been before the Planning Commission when merchants have illegally displayed merchandise on public right -of -way so as to attract attention to their stores. She commented that an Encroachment Permit is required for • the use of a public right -of -way. Amended Chairman PersBn made an amendment to his motion to deny Motion * Amendment No. 661, and directed staff to do nothing with said Amendment. Commissioner Winburn concurred with the Commissioners' foregoing testimony. She stated that in her opinion the additional Code Enforcement Officer was necessary so as to enforce use permit conditions of approval. She said that the intent of the Planning Commission was not for a Code Enforcement Officer to enforce a use that had existed for 18 years. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support denial of Amendment No. 661; however, he expressed his concern that maybe the policy should be changed. Mr. Hewicker stated that it appears that the Planning Commission desires to change the policy in that the Planning Commission does not want staff to interpret outdoor sales activities that require use permits to include outdoor display of merchandise; and that retail or sales establishments who traditionally carry on their sales inside, the Planning Commission does not want to prohibit said commercial uses from also displaying merchandise outside on private property, but not on the public right -of -way. -37- COMMISSIONERS �mG 9N �� 9 m9j, �y �OP I A t; CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 ROLWALL INDEX Commissioner Di Sano stated that there were businessmen who requested that they confer with staff regarding policy. Chairman Person pointed out that one of the purposes of Business or Homeowners Associations is to govern themselves. Commissioner Di Sano suggested that staff could contact Associations to assist staff in forming policy. Amended Motion Chairman Person amended his previous motion to deny Amendment No. 611, and to direct staff to change the policy so as to permit outdoor display of merchandise in conjunction with retail sales establishments that traditionally carry on their sales inside a building, without the necessity of securing a use permit, providing that said display in the open is located on Ayes * * * * private property. Motion voted on to deny Amendment No. No * 661. MOTION CARRIED. In response to Commissioner Debay's statement regarding the Code Enforcement Officer's contacting the businesses, Mr. Hewicker stated that the enforcement was by the direction of the Planning Department and perceived as direction from the City Council. • Commissioner Debay stated that the Planning Commission needs to support staff in the instruction that is given them by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Review of duties functions and the Discussion review process of the Modifications Committee. Item No.l Mod. Comm. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The Planning Commission discussed with staff the enclosed patio that was constructed illegally on Balboa Island that should have been approved prior to construction by the Planning Commission; however, when the Modifications Committee visited the site prior to a Modifications Committee hearing regarding a proposed trellis, they observed the illegal enclosed patio. Commissioner Koppelman suggested that the Modifications Committee should not have approved the trellis modification until the illegal enclosed patio had been reviewed by the Planning Commission in conjunction with a variance application. Discussion ensued, and the Planning Commission suggested that when a modification and use permit (or variance) have been applied for, both permits should come directly to the Planning Commission. -38- COMMISSIONERS \1011�lrr 0� Alk o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 R ALL INDEX The Planning Commission commended staff on the thorough staff report regarding the policies of the Modifications Committee that was submitted to them prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Suggested items for discussion at the Planning Discussion: Item No.2 Commission Study Session on March 10. 1988. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion All Ayes * Motion was made to reschedule the Planning Commission Study Session to March 24, 1988. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Reschddule Study Session Chairman Pers6n requested that staff submit a report concerning an up -date of the General Plan, and that the report be submitted to the Planning Commission at the March 10, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Discussion' Request to initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the Rein No.3 Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to consider the installation of boat cranes on property with marine- Amendment oriented uses in excess of permitted height limits to Title 20 without the requirement of securiniz a use permit or a variance. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public All Ayes hearing on March 24, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. Request to initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the Discussion Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to establish a new Item No.4 off-street parking requirement for public assembly uses Amendment to Title 20 to include but not be limited to, theaters, churches and auditoriums. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion * Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public All Ayes hearing on April 7, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. 39 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 18, 1988 •. Motion *e LL 0 INDEX Request to consider amending_ conditions of approval in Discussion. It Nb.S conjunction with Use Permit No. 3065 which permitted the e�ansion of the existing woody's Wharf Restaurant on property located in the "Recreational and Marine UP3065 Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Sauare Specific Plan Area Said approval also allowed the purchase of in -lieu parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking and the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking with a full time valet parking _spaces service. INITIATED BY: .The City of Newport Beach Chairman Pers6n requested the review of the conditions of approval that exist on the original Use Permit No. 3065, specifically the lack of conditions of approval concerning the requirement of a glass enclosure on the patio area of the restaurant facility. s * Motion was made and voted on to set this item for public hearing on March 24, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 11:55 p.m. Adjournment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -40- •. Motion *e LL 0