The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/22/1993r COMMISSIONERS A.\Acl0G4W�\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers MINUTES DATE: April 2P2,1993 ?OLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * Commissioner Gifford was absent. Absent * : x EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney k k i William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager John Douglas, Principal Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary k # k Minutes of April 22. 1993 Minutes of Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the April 22, 1993,- 4 -22 -93 Ayes Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain Absent k k Public Comments: Public No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on Comment non - agenda items. k k k Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, April 16, 1993, in front of City Hall. 6 ��`1'p CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Request to Withdraw Application: Request to With - Director Hewicker stated that the representative for the applicant, International Specialty Group, Inc., has requested that Item No. 5, draw Applicat: Use Permit No. 1709 (Amended), regarding a restaurant located at 900 Bayside Drive, be withdrawn. i t ! Traffic Study No. 86 (Public Hearing) item No:: Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow conversion of Ts 86 existing 200 excess parking spaces in conjunction with an existing office development to a pay parldng facility which would mainly be Approved used for the John Wayne Airport passengers. IACATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 196/40 -43 (Resubdivision No. 786) located at 4680 MacArthur Court, on the northeasterly comer of MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Ace Parking, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Lyle Overby appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant and he concurred with the findings and condition in Exhibit "A ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Overby replied that it is necessary to obtain approval from the Airport Authority to provide shuttle service to the airport; however, it is necessary to first obtain approval from the City. i -2- COM IISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A„ri7.7. ioo'A ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Overby explained that the subject location at MacArthur Court was originally master planned for an additional building and the excess parking spaces would have provided parking spaces for the. planned structure. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Aotion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Traffic Study No. 86 ayes * * subject to the findings and condition in Exhibit "X. MOTION absent * CARRIED. FINDINGS: iA. CEOA COMPLIANCE That the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) B. TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE STUDY NO. 86 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy S -1. 2. That the traffic study indicates that the traffic projected one year after project completion, during any a.m, or p.m. 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection, will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour period. -3- COMMISSIONERS % 0\0\11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 .2 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That no significant traffic impact is expected at either the intersection of Campus Drive at Jamboree Road or Campus Drive at MacArthur Boulevard. CONDITION: 1. That the Planning Commission may add conditions of approval to Traffic Study No. 86, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of traffic study No. 86, upon a determination that the operation and conduct of the pay parking facility and shuttle service, operated by Ace - Parking Inc. or any of its successors, granted by the approval of this traffic study, is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, or general welfare of the community. s t t Variance No. 1184 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No Request to amend a previously approved variance that permitted v1184A alterations and additions to an existing single - family dwelling located in the R -3 District which is nonconforming with regards to Approve allowable height inasmuch as the existing structure extends above the top of curb elevation along Ocean Boulevard. The previous approval included the following construction above the top of curb elevation on Ocean Boulevard: the expansion of the existing living area of the dwelling; the extension and reconstruction of an existing deck and bandrails including a new roof extension over a portion of the deck; the replacement of a composition roof with a new tile roof; the reconstruction and extension of an existing wall and wind screen that encroaches into the 3 foot side yard setback; and the construction of a new circular stairway. The proposed amendment includes the following additional alterations which extend above the top of curb elevation of Ocean Boulevard: a request to enclose an existing covered porch at the front of the structure; a modification to the Zoning Code to allow the construction of three bay windows along the front of the building, whereas the Zoning Code permits only two bay windows; a -4- .2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Anril 21_. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX modification to the Zoning Code to increase the width of an existing bay window to 9# feet whereas the Zoning Code limits the widths of encroaching bay windows to 8 feet; a modification for three architectural columns that encroach 6 inches into the. required 10 foot front yard setback; and a modification for a new decorative chimney cap which exceeds the minimum UBC requirements. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 36-3 (Resubdivision No. 274) located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of Ocean Boulevard, between Carnation Avenue and Dahlia Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -3 • APPLICANT: Joseph Vallejo, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Lisa Vallejo, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Vallejo requested that Finding No. 2, and Condition No. 5, Exhibit 'B ", be modified so as to allow the elimination of the existing bay window to allow a doorway for access to the front yard. Commissioner Pomeroy explained that by providing doors instead of the bay window the applicant would be taking advantage of an opportunity to encroach into a setback with doors and direct access to the outside. Commissioner Pomeroy and James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained the modification that would be required to convert the bay window into doors. Mr. Joseph Vallejo, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Mr. Vallejo, Mr. Hewicker explained that the requirement is that the bay window must be elevated above the floor of the dwelling by 18 inches; -5- • ��'o�t�`'P �O�q`t'o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX however, if the bay window would be modified down to the floor, then square footage would be added to the structure in the front yard setback. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the Zoning Code allows two bay windows to encroach into a front yard setback, and a third bay window requires a modification to the Zoning Code. He further replied that a roof can encroach 2 -1/2 feet into a front yard setback area. Mr. Vallejo agreed to lower the chimney cap as requested in Condition No. 4, Exhibit 'B ". Mr. V. J. Zardouz, 2512 Ocean Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he did not receive a public notice notifying him of the last public hearing in October, 1992, and he expressed a concern regarding the height of the requested chimney cap. Chairman Edwards explained that the applicants agreed to lower the chimney cap as requested. Mr. Laycock replied that a public notice was mailed to Mr. and Mrs. Zardouz at P. O. Box 17893, Anaheim in October, 1992. Mr. Laycock stated that he had previously informed Mrs. Zardouz that the roof height would be raised by 8 inches; however, the roof would only be raised by 4 inches. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1184 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'B ". Substitute Substitute motion was made and voted on to approve Variance Motion - * No. 1184 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Ayes Exhibit "B ", with the exception that Finding No. 2 would be Absent * amended to delete the retention of the existing bay window with Its current width, and with the requirement to maintain a height of 18 . inches above the inside finish floor elevation to allow a door where -6- l �o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX the bay window exists, and to delete Condition No. 5. Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that there was no objection from the neighbors. SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED. Finding: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property is substantially developed with an existing single family dwelling which exceeds the top of curb elevation on Ocean Boulevard. 2. That the granting of the application as it pertains to the enclosure of the front porch of the dwelling, the approval of the modification for the additional two bay windows, the conversion of an existing bay window to floor area with doors, and the three architectural columns which encroach into the required 10 foot front yard setback is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the entire upper level of the existing structure currently exceeds the top of curb elevation on Ocean Boulevard, and therefore, there is no reasonable alternative available to the applicant without exceeding the top of curb height limit. 3. That the granting of such application as described in Finding No. 2 above, will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood inasmuch as the proposed construction and alterations are within the existing silhouette of the building -7- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Anril 22. 101 ROLL CALL INDEX and there will be no significant loss of existing public or private views. 4. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the. use, property, and building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modifications for the number and width of the proposed bay windows; the proposed front yard encroachments for three architectural columns; and the height of the. proposed chimney, are all consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the approval of the applicant's request for an increased chimney height is not necessary for the enjoyment of property rights, inasmuch as Section 20.02.060 of the Municipal Code already provides adequate allowance for increased chimney heights for spark arrestor apparatus or architectural features of a decorative screening nature. 6. That the proposed height of the chimney and related decorative chimney cap may obstruct views from residential properties located across Ocean Boulevard from the subject property. 7. That the approval of the proposed height of the chimney could set a precedent for the approval of other similar requests that would be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare, and detrimental or injurious to property or improvements elsewhere in the City. 8. That the approval of the proposed chimney cap would be contrary to the intent of Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal • Code, would also be in excess of the allowable height and -8- L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX the allowable overall dimensions as adopted by Amendment No. 725 which was intended to provide adequate design parameters for these types of architectural features, and further, would be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, and detrimental or injurious to property or improvements elsewhere in the neighborhood, and the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 3. That all previous conditions of approval for Variance No. 1184 shall be fulfilled. 4. That the height of the proposed chimney shall. fully conform with the requirements of Section 20.02.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. Deleted. 6. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -9- COM MSSIONERS • ��'�t��,io �o L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 .3 [LOLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3493 (Public Hearing) Item No Request to permit the construction of a second dwelling unit (Granny Unit) on property located in the R -1 District in UP3493 accordance with Chapter 20.78 of the Municipal Code that permits coat I d a second dwelling unit if said residence is intended for one or two to persons who are 60 years of age or older. 5/6/93 LOCATION: Lot 8, Block 17, First Addition to Newport Heights, located at 310 El Modena Avenue, on the southeasterly side of El Modena Avenue, between Cliff Drive and Beacon Street, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Max Feurberg, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public bearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3493 subject to the findings in Exhibit 'B ". Commissioner Pomeroy stated that granny units have been a sensitive issue in the City and inasmuch as the subject application complies with the terms of the Granny Unit Ordinance that the Commission does not have the right to deny the application unless the Commission would find that there are extenuating circumstances. He explained that he would not approve the application without the applicant in attendance wherein he suggested that the Commission could continue the item. Amended Commissioner Glover amended her motion to continue Use Permit No. 3493 to the Planning Commission meeting of May 6, A es 1993. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. nt * -10- .3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 131 U1 April 22. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX s s s Use Permit No. 1640 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted aPI640A the establishment of a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and patio dining, on property located in the RSC -H District. The Approved proposed amendment includes a request to expand the "net public area" of the restaurant by adding to the existing building, the installation of a new outdoor patio dining area, and the addition of live entertainment consisting of musicians and singers inside the facility. LOCATION: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 49 -22 (Resubdivision No. 339) located at 2531 Eastbluff Drive, at the northwesterly corner of Eastbluff Drive and Vista del Sol in the Eastbluff Shopping Center. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: Puccini Ristorante /The Carlson Company, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, suggested the following Condition No. 18, Exhibit "A ", be added inasmuch as an Entertainment Permit is required from the Business License Division if entertainment is permitted. That an Entertainment Permit for the proposed live entertainment shall be approved by the City in accordance with Section 5.28.040 of the Municipal Code prior to its implementation. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dan Burgner appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He explained that Puccini Ristorante is a . family run restaurant and the chef /owner prepares the food in -11- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL DIDEX front of the restaurant's patrons. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Burgner concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including added Condition No. 18. Mr. Burgner explained that the Santa Ana restaurant's, entertainment currently consists of a piano that is played occasionally and it is possible that there would be singing waiters. In response to a question posed by Assistant City Attorney Robin Flory, Mr. Burgner replied that the restaurant is moving from Santa Ana to the subject site. Mr. Jim Petrilli, 2501 Bamboo Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Petrilli opposed the subject application based on his concerns that the establishment would not be consistent with the neighborhood, and that it would generate more noise and traffic in the area. . Commissioner DiSano pointed out that Condition No. 16, Exhibit "A ", indicates that the Planning Commission has the ability to bring back the use permit to add or modify conditions of approval if it is determined that the operation of the use permit is detrimental to the community. Mr. Laycock stated that information provided to staff indicates that the live entertainment consists of music highlighting the operas of 19th Century Europe, and will be produced by live musicians and recorded music. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Petrilli explained that he had not recommended any future shopping center tenants to The Irvine Company. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Petrilli explained that he has never filed a complaint of any uses in the shopping center. In response to Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Petrilli replied that he had no objections with the Newport Beach Tennis Club. Mr. Bernard Pegg, 2633 Bamboo Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his concerns regarding the hours -12- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX of operation, entertainment in the patio area, and serving alcoholic beverages in the patio. Mr. Burgner reappeared before the Planning Commission to, address the previously stated concerns. In response to questions posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Burgner replied that the applicant is requesting that the hours of operation be from 11:00 a.m.. to 1:30 a.m. daily, and the main purpose for the 1:30 am. closing is for Friday and Saturday nights. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Glover addressed Condition No. 13, Exhibit 'W, regarding the service of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Hewicker explained that the applicant is proposing to enclose the 14 foot by 14 foot patio area with a hedge or a fence to allow alcoholic service. Commissioner Pomeroy responded to Mr. Petrilli's concerns regarding the neighborhood. He supported the service of alcoholic beverages on the patio based on the ambiance of an Italian restaurant. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that if the ambient noise flows into the residential area then a complaint can be registered and the use permit can be further reviewed by the Commission to determine if the use is detrimental to the area. Commissioner DiSano stated that Condition No. 16, Exhibit "A ", allows the Commission to make or modify conditions of approval if it is determined that the operation of the use permit is detrimental to the community. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1640 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit W, adding Condition No. 18 as recommended and modify Condition No. 3 regarding the hours of operation from 10:30 a.m. until 12:00 -13- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH uM,i aru-M April 22. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX midnight Sunday through Thursday and from 10:30 a.m. until 1.30 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Following the Planning Commission's consideration of the hours. of operation, Commissioner Glover requested that the motion be amended to state that the hours of operation shall be from 10:30 Amended a.m. until 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and from 10:30 a.m. until 1:30 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The maker of the motion agreed to amend the motion. Ayes Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1640 (Amended) Absent * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", amending Condition No. 3, to state that the hours of operation shall be limited between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and from 10:30 a.m, until 1:30 a.m. Friday and Saturday, and adding Condition No. 18. Findings: 1. That the proposed restaurant use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the proposed live entertainment is in keeping with the existing restaurant operation and shall be confined to the interior of the restaurant. 3. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 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 property within the proposed development. 5. That the waiver of the restaurant development standards as they relate to traffic circulation, walls, parking lot -14- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Anril 22. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX illumination and landscaping will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed restaurant is located in an existing developed site. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1640 (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 the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed restaurant shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, and floor plan, . except as noted below. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1640 and Use Permit No. 1640 (Amended) shall remain in effect. 3. That the hours of operation of the restaurant shall be limited between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and from 10:30 am. and 1:30 a.m. Friday and Saturday. 4. That a minimum of one parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public area" shall be provided for the restaurant operation. 5. The "net public area" of the restaurant shall not exceed 1,450 square feet. 6. That the live entertainment shall be limited so that the sound from the live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the structure; and further that when the live entertainment is performed, all windows and doors within -15- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX the restaurant shall be closed except when entering and leaving by the main entrance of the restaurant. 7. That all employees of the restaurant shall be required to park on -site. 8. That the restaurant development standards as they pertain to traffic circulation, walls, parking lot illumination, and landscaping are hereby waived. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Vista del Oro Eastbluff Drive and adjoining properties. 13. That service of alcoholic beverages in the patio dining area shall be licensed by the State Alcoholic Beverage Control. 14. That no outdoor loudspeakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the subject restaurant. 15. That a Lot Line Adjustment (to adjust existing lot lines) be approved by the Modifications Committee and be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits for the expanded . restaurant facility. -16- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Wiff UNTD—E-0 April 22, 1993 .5 +u1 ROLL CALL INDEX 16. That the Planning Commission may add 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. 17. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 18. That an Entertainment Permit for the proposed live entertainment shall be approved by the City in accordance with Section 5.28.040 of the Municipal Code prior to its implementation. Use Permit No 1709 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1709A permitted the establishment of a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages, live entertainment and the use of an off -site parking withdra area for a portion of the required off - street parking, on property located in the RSC -H District. The proposed amendment includes: a request to provide an outdoor deck and use it for dining purposes; convert a portion of the restaurant to a billiard use which includes 19 pool tables; convert the lower floor bar area to a coffee bar with seating; and establish hours of operation from 6:00 am. to 2:00 a.m. The proposal also includes the retention of the permitted live entertainment as previously approved by the Planning Commission. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 49 -15 ( Resubdivision No. 337) located at 900 Bayside Drive (i.e., restaurant site) and Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 11 -7) Resubdivision No. 243) (i.e., offsite . parking area in the Bayside Shopping -17- .5 +u1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Center), on the northerly side of Bayside Drive, westerly of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Marine Avenue. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: International Specialty Group, Inc., Aspen, Colorado OWNER: Greg C. Mosher, Newport Beach James Hewicker, -- Planning Director, reported that the representative for the applicant has requested that the subject application be withdrawn from the agenda. f k R Hearing) Use Permit No 3306 (Amended) (Continued Public Item No. Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed UP3306A a change in the operational characteristics of the Cafe Lido Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages located in the 'Retail Approved and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan, so as to change the permitted live entertainment to include jazz combos with amplified music, vocals and percussion instruments, including drums. The proposal also included a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit the use of compact parking spaces, and parking spaces and a trash enclosure that encroach into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. The proposed amendment includes a request to add dancing to the restaurant operation and redesign the existing on -site parking. The proposal also includes modifications to the Zoning Code so as to allow aisle widths that are less than the required width for commercial off - street parking; and to allow a portion of the parking spaces and a chain with ballards, to encroach into the ten foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. -1& L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April T) taoA ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 129 -7 -8 (Resubdivision No. 600), located at 50130th Street, on the northeasterly corner of 30th Street and Villa Way, in the Cannery . Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Joe Sperrazza (Cafe Lido Restaurant), Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Joe Sperrazza, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sperrazza presented an overview of the operation of the establishment. He explained that Cafe Lido is the only restaurant during the past two years that has received awards from the California Restaurant Writer's Association and the Southern California Restaurant Writer's Association for Continental food. The primary purpose of the establishment is to have food service first, and secondary is live entertainment. Dinners are served from 5:00 p.m. until 12:00 midnight Sundays through Thursdays, and from 5:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m., Fridays and Saturdays. Entertainment during the week starts at 8:30 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. weekdays and until 1:30 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Mr. Sperrazza indicated that the type of entertainment that exists at Cafe Lido attracts more of a mature adult audience as opposed to the type of entertainment that attracts young adults that frequent the area. He discussed numerous reasons why dancing would benefit the restaurant and the community. Commissioner DiSano referred to the letter from Mary Williamson, dated April 22, 1993, addressed to the Planning Commission to express her concerns regarding the restaurant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. -19- 'bo OlOC� d $ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Sperrazza replied that there have not been any complaints against Cafe Lido since the restaurant opened in 1988. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that a resident had informed him . that the subject proposal may be an expansion of a use that was not appropriate to the original mixed -use concept in the area. He indicated that the foregoing concern was the only comment that he received during the past five years concerning the restaurant. He pointed out that the Planning Commission took much care when the application was approved in 1988, that the noise would be confined to the building. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Sperrazza replied that no one contacted him to discuss any concerns that they have regarding the restaurant. . Mr. John Loomis, 30th Street Architects, architect for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the purpose of the modification to the parking lot whereby he explained the parking problems that occurred during daytime use by the general public and the affect that the lack of parking had on the restaurant when it opened at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Loomis explained that the proposed parking plan would meet the necessary parking requirements for office use and the restaurant. Dancing would occur on a "jazz deck" of 150 square feet on a raised area with a rail around it, and when the area is not used for dancing it will be used for lounge seating. He explained that the requested dancing is a very minor modification to the existing use of the restaurant and the use would not affect the "net public area ", parking requirements, and no change in the entertainment characteristics. He stated that the solid construction of the building would impede the noise coming from the restaurant. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Loomis concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Ms. Sharon Crommett, 310 Via Lido Soud, appeared before the Planning Commission to express her support of the subject use, -20- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 79.. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX and the asset that the restaurant and Mr. Sperrazza are to the community. Mr. Thomas Dixon, 428 - 31st Street, appeared before the . Planning Commission to express his opposition to the restaurant. He stated his concern is noise in Cannery Village after the bars and restaurants close, and that he has notified the police on a number of occasions regarding the noise in the alley to the rear of his residence. The mixed -use in Cannery Village appears to be tilted towards commercial use and against the residential use. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the Commission has not received any complaints regarding the restaurant prior to the subject public hearing, and the Police Department has not informed staff of any complaints regarding the establishment. Commissioner Pomeroy explained that the Commission would have reviewed the use permit had there been complaints from the residents. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Dixon replied that the proposed dance floor would exacerbate the situation. He explained that the dance permit would remain with the land and not with Mr. Sperrazza if the applicant would leave the site, and he expressed his concern regarding the type of entertainment that could occur on the property at some future date. Mr. Rusty Basterling, 5307 Seashore Drive and co -owner of DP's Bar and Grill, located at 3110 Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his support of the subject use. He said that Mr. Sperrazza and the bigh - profile supper club are an asset to Cannery Village, and that the small dance floor would appeal to the public and would enhance the restaurant's business. There are not many restaurants in the area where a mature adult can go and be entertained. Mr. Buzz Person, 507 - 29th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his concerns regarding mixed -use in -21- % � V�\ONPROQA\W-o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL MEX Cannery Village. He said that the City approved a Specific Area Plan which promoted the residential and commercial mixed -use, and the City gave a Density Bonus for mixed -use which would allow a mixed -use building to go to a 1.6 Floor Area Ratio. He. opposes the subject restaurant because it is in the middle of a mixed -use community whereby he explained that he has been disturbed in the middle of the night by patrons leaving the restaurant. Dr. Ken Sereno, Fountain Valley, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his support of the restaurant. He stated that be enjoys high -quality jazz and to attend a sophisticated restaurant where the mature well- mannered patrons enjoy listening to the music. The dancing will enhance and complete what is a delightful dining and musical experience. . In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Dr. Sereno replied that he patronizes the restaurant from approximately 8:30 p.m. to closing, and that he has not encountered noisy restaurant patrons. Dr. Sereno stated that the patrons exit on the street inasmuch as the customers cannot get to the alley from the parking lot. Mr. Bob Tiernan, 425 - 30th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to express support of the restaurant. He stated that the restaurant is an asset to the community, and he disagreed that the noise comes from the restaurant's mature patrons. George Ristich, owner of Georges Camelot Restaurant in Lido Marina Village, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the restaurant. He commented that the restaurant's sophisticated patrons are well - behaved when they leave the restaurant, and the local restaurants are blamed for noisy customers instead of considering the noisy individuals who frequent Newport Boulevard. Mr. Sperrazza reappeared before the Planning Commission. In . reference to the aforementioned letter, Mr. Sperrazza commented -22- COMMISSIONERS .oa 4'10�rn�d�dr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX that the letter's complaint addressed the existing use and not the proposed use. He explained that it is difficult to curb noises in Cannery Village and to single out one establishment is very difficult. Mr. Sperrazza suggested that if there are concerns. regarding noise then there should be more police patrol after 1:00 a.m. to curb disturbances. Commissioner DiSano pointed out that Condition No. 10, Exhibit "A", allows the Planning Commission to call up the use permit for further review if it is determined that the use is detrimental to the community. Mr. Sperrazza responded that he is aware of the foregoing condition, and the restaurant staff will be more cognizant of the community's concerns. Mr. Dixon reappeared before the Planning Commission and he . said that he has observed individuals coming out of the subject establishment in a disorderly manner in to the alley. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3306 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner DiSano addressed the mixed -use in Cannery Village . and he pointed out that in Europe, cafes appear in mixed -use environments. He pointed out that the Commission has the opportunity to review the use permit if it is determined that the use is harmful to the community. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards with respect to intensification of use and adequacy of parking, Commissioner DiSano responded that the adequacy of the parking has been addressed to the satisfaction of staff and that he does not believe that the request would be an intensification of use. Commissioner Glover stated that she would not support the motion. She said that the subject request is a land use issue. The proprietor has friends in the community who attest to his running -23- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX the restaurant well and is of good character, and she did not disagree with that issue. However, the Commission made a decision, because of the narrowness of the streets and other various reasons, that the Commission would encourage mixed -use.. It is a tenuous situation inasmuch as not enough people have purchased property to develop the mixed -use concept that the Commission envisioned. She addressed the economic issues; however, the issues in total are to encourage mixed -use and redevelopment by individuals. She opined that the proposal is an intensification of use in an area with narrow alleys and narrow streets and she wants to encourage mimed -use and redevelop old properties. Commissioner Merrill supported the motion. He said that the proposed parking lot and the dance floor would not make much of a difference in intensification of use. The 2:00 a.m. restaurant and cocktail lounge closings are not appropriate when they are adjacent to a residential use. He suggested that the neighbors contact the Police Department if they have any complaints regarding the restaurant. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the Commission should consider the mixed -use concept in the Cannery Village Specific Area Plan. He opined that the Cafe Dance Permit would reduce the noise as opposed to increase the noise because if there is dancing instead of cocktails then the patrons are more apt to be alert. The proposal is not an intensification of use, it is a change of use. He supported the motion. In response to comments posed by Chairman Edwards with respect to the hours of entertainment, Mr. Hewicker pointed out that live entertainment ends at 1:00 a.m. Chairman Edwards stated that the proposed use does not change the characteristics of Cannery Village; however, noise travels increasingly to the residents in the area once the commercial establishments close in the evening, and noise carries when anyone comes out of any establishment. He concurred that the balance of mixed -use has turned, and he agreed -24- COPAMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH lu_; A .9 April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX that the closing hour has already been created. Chairman Edwards supported the motion. Ayes * Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3306 (Amended). No * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION Absent * CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. The restaurant facility with incidental dancing is consistent with the General Plan and the Adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the proposed parking lot restriping and the use of the barriers and chains will not result in a reduction of the number of parking spaces which were provided by the previously approved Use Permit No. 3306 (Amended), and that the facility can be adequately served by the parking which can be provided on -site. 4. That the parking spaces proposed to encroach into the required 10 foot alley setback will not interfere with loading and unloading of commercial vehicles adjacent to the alley. 5. That the proximity of the off -site parking in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot and the on- street parking are available for use of the subject restaurant as well as the general public. 6. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to traffic circulation, walls, a portion of the parking and landscaping, parking lot illumination and underground . utilities will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties. -25- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code, so as to allow a portion of the parking spaces and the barriers and chains to encroach into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. In addition, the modification for the proposed parking design (wider parking spaces and narrower aisles) will provide adequate vehicular circulation on the lot. . 8. The approval of Use Permit No. 3306 (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 the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and parking layout plan, except as noted below. 2. That a minimum of 42 parking spaces shall be provided on- site and that the proposed ballards and chains shall be removed during the nighttime and weekend business hours of the restaurant facility. 3. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3306 and Use Permit No. 3306 (Amended) shall remain in effect. -26- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES And] 22. 1993 ' T ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the "net public area" of the restaurant facility shall not exceed the permitted 2,166 sq.ft. approved by Use Permit No. 3306. 5. That restaurant development standards pertaining to traffic circulation, walls, a portion of the parking and landscaping, parking lot illumination, and underground utilities shall be waived. 6. That the existing landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 7. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the implementation of dancing on site. . 8. That a Cafe Dance Permit for the proposed dancing shall be approved by the City in accordance with Section 5.32.030 of the Municipal Code prior to its implementation. 9. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 10. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to the 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. 11. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. s s t -27- CONIMSSIONERS ��0 2t�.p '�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A P rd 22, 1993 7 ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No 3343 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.' UP3343A Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the reestablishment of a restaurant with on-sale.. alcoholic beverages and live entertainment which was previously Approved destroyed by fire, on property located in the "Specialty Retail" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Spec Plan. Said approval included a limited daytime operation based on available on -site parking and a full nighttime operation that was permitted in conjunction with the use of an additional 18 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot. The approval also included a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the on -site parking spaces to encroach into the required front yard setback and the required rear yard setback adjacent to a 14 foot wide alley. The proposed amendment involves a request to revise Condition of Approval No. 2 so as. to allow all of the "net public area" of the restaurant to be used during the day. LOCATION: Lot 1, Lot 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Block 230, Lancaster's Addition, located at 2900 Newport Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner of Newport Boulevard (northbound) and 29th Street, in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: 701 Lido Park Partnership (Arnold's Hide - Out Restaurant), Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. George Ristich, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Ristich concurred with the findings and conditions -28- 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX in Exhibit "A ", and that he would agree with the 18 in -lieu parking spaces. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr.. Ristich commented on the color of paint that he used to paint his building. Mr. Ristich explained that the proposed addition would be utilized as a smoking area. Mr. Joe Sperrazza, Cafe Lido, appeared before the Planning Commission to support the use permit. He said that his establishment resided in the subject building for seven years and there was never a parking problem during the daytime. He commented that with the emphasis on smoking areas that he could understand why the applicant would want to differentiate the non- smokers from the smokers. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3343 (Amended) Ayes* * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION Absent CARRIED. Findings: 1. The proposed increase in the daytime "net public area" of the restaurant is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the additional "net public area" is adequately served by the approved daytime use of 18 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot. -29- Q 111t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3343 (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 the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3343, as approved on March 9, 1989, shall be fulfilled. 2. That the "net public area" of the restaurant use shall be permitted up to a maximum of 1,200 square feet during all . hours of operation. 3. That the applicant shall provide a minimum of 12 on -site parking spaces and 18 in -lieu parking spaces during both the daytime and nighttime operation of the subject restaurant. The 18 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot shall be purchased from the City of Newport Beach on an annual basis, in accordance with the April 8, 1988 Sales Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Doan Trust, and as subsequently amended by the City Council on March 8, 1993. 4. That all trash areas shall be shielded or screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 5. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission. approval of this application prior to the expansion of the daytime "net public area" of the restaurant use. 6. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to . the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a -30- COMMSSIONERS Aooloo I f o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22. 1993 ROLL CALL PME 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. 7. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. . A. General Plan Amendment 92 -3 (E) (Continued Public Item No. Hearin GPA92 -3E LCP31 Request to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan so as to increase the allowable size of the proposed Interpretive Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. and A779 delete a secondary bicycle trail through the Westbay parcel; and UP3488 Cont'd the acceptance of an environmental document. to AND 5/6/93 B Local Coastal Program Amendment No 31 (Continued Public Hearin Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so as to increase the allowable size of the proposed Interpretive Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach -31- COMMISSIONERS MW CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 20LL CALL INDEX LOCATION: The Westbay parcel, located at 2200 Irvine Avenue, southeasterly of the intersection of Irvine Avenue and University Drive. AND C Amendment No 779 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a portion of Districting Maps No. 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 61 so as to redesignate portions of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park property from the "U" (Unclassified), R -3- B and R -4 -B -2 Districts to the P-C (Planned Community) District. LOCATION: The portions of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park between the Santa Ana -Delhi . Channel in Santa Ana Heights and Jamboree Road (201 Bayview Way); and between Eastbluff Drive and the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve boundary adjacent to the mouth of Big Canyon (1900 Back Bay Drive). ZONES: R -3 -B, R -4 -B -2 and Unclassified APPLICANT: The County of Orange OWNER: Same as applicant AND D. Use Permit No. 3488 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to approve a General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park, which would serve as a Planned Community Development Plan and regulations for the regional park. LOCATION: Upper Newport Bay Regional Park surrounds the northern portion of Upper Newport Bay -32- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u lf'T -M April 22. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX in three separate parcels forming an arc from approximately Santiago Drive on the west to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve boundary adjacent to the mouth of Big. Canyon on the east (2200 Irvine Avenue, 201 Bayview Way and 1900 Back Bay Drive). ZONES: P -C, R -3 -B, R -4 -B -2 and Unclassified APPLICANT: The County of Orange OWNER: Same as applicant John Douglas, Principal Planner, presented an overview of the proposed project to change the designation for the Interpretative Center from a maximum of 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet, to delete a secondary bicycle trail through the Westbay parcel, and to establish a Development Plan and operational guidelines for Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. Mr. Douglas stated that the Planned Community designation can refer to any type of use and the uses are established through a Development Plan under the Planned Community Zoning District. The project does not comprise any commercial or residential development, and the only building proposed is the Interpretative Center on the Westbay parcel. The Planned Community designation allows the plans and regulations to be tailored specifically to the piece of property involved, and the subject use permit would serve as a Development Plan for the property under the Planned Community designation. It is a mechanism that is being proposed to adopt a Development Plan for the Park. Back Bay Drive is not located within the Park boundaries, and is located on State property that is administered by the Department of Fish and Game. It is a public street right -of -way that is under the control of the City. It is discussed in the County Park Plan but it is not before the Commission as a decision item. -33- COMMISSIONERS #%\RORRQNI`s�\o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH lu l l►�lfil Y ar.� April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Douglas stated that staff received letters from the County Harbors, Beaches & Parks Department, dated April 21, 1993,.and from Craig and Charlotte Bluell, residents of the area, dated April 19, 1993, prior to the public hearing. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Douglas replied that the existing zoning designation for the Westbay property on Irvine Avenue is currently Planned Community. The zoning was adopted when The Irvine Company owned the property and the intention was to construct a residential development; however, a Development Plan was never adopted. The Santa Ana Heights parcel and the Eastbluff parcel are either designated Unclassified or Residential. Mr. Douglas further explained that during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process the draft EIR was processed for public review and the City . submitted comments that were included in the EIR. Individual members of the City staff, acting as private citizens, participated in a series of public hearings that the County held prior to developing the General Development Plan. The County proposal is being submitted to the City for consideration. The City is involved because most of the Park is within the City limits and the City has either exclusive ownership or shares ownership in some of the property and some easements exist on the property. In addition to City approval, Coastal Commission approval will be required in addition to the County Board of Supervisors. The City is one of the agencies that will be required to give approval to the project. In response to questions posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Douglas replied that the Planned Community designation is an administrative mechanism; however, an Open Space designation could also accommodate the plan that the County is proposing. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the City has an Open Space District that carries designations of Open Space Active and Open Space Passive. Open Space Active primarily allows higher intensity uses, active recreation type facilities, ball fields, etc. A use permit would be required to establish those uses. Open Space Passive requires a use permit to establish grading or -34- COI1mOSSIONERS 'p o �c�'�P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES -me AK111kl ROLL CALL INDEX a Building Permit for a passive recreation facility. Staff has considered revising the Open Space Zoning District descriptions; however, that action has not commenced and that is the reason staff chose to take the existing Planned Community Zoning . District that has existed on the Westbay property since the late 1979s. There is no reason why the property cannot he zoned Planned Community adopt a Development Plan for the Park, and have it developed under the Planned Community zone. The Local Coastal Plan and the General Plan designation will be for Open Space and there is no way possible that anyone can change the Open Space designation on the General Plan or on the Local Coastal Plan without going through the public hearing process. If the Commission requests to change the zoning on the entire property to Open Space that would be an alternative. It would involve not only adding the Open Space designation to the portion of the park side that is on the Eastbluff side and the Santa Ana Heights portion of the property, but it would also require changing the zoning on the Westbay property. Bob Fisher, Director of County Harbors, Beaches, and Parks appeared before the Planning Commission. The project was an open and a very much participated process with the City staff. The property is land which was acquired from The Irvine Company. The Irvine Company planned to develop the property for residential uses; however, there were objections from the City and the Department of Fish and Game which owned the adjacent ecological reserve and from the Coastal Commission which saw an inappropriate use for the property. During the course of negotiations over resolving a dispute involving the intensification of the Newport Center, it was suggested that The Irvine Company could allow the subject property to become public Open Space. The Irvine Company agreed to the suggestion and they contacted the County with the idea that the County would take the land and create a regional park. The County identified the land as a regional park site for many years in the County's General Plan and with the City's plans and LCP. The County planning staff had to recognize The Irvine Company had imposed deed restrictions on the property requiring it to be used for only passive recreation -35- W �o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL MEX purposes. It was further recognized that the Department of Fish and Game was very insistent about the uses surrounding the ecological reserve. Based on the idea that the land is located in a sensitive area in the Coastal zone, staff had to take into account, the fact that the Coastal Commission has the final determination of what can be done with the property. The County proposal is the result of the respectful views of the City and the community, and the proposal attempts to meet most of their objectives. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Fisher replied that the County is requesting that the Commission recognize the proposal is an improvement upon the existing condition of the property. The property has been surveyed as to the present condition, biologically and otherwise, and the County believes that the property is deteriorating under the present .. conditions. The County is liable for the property, the County is responsible to be certain that the area is protected, and the County wants to make improvements for all of the citizens of Orange County. Ms. Mary Murray, Project Manager for the General Development Plan, appeared before the Planning Commission. The General Development Plan was prepared over two years, and the Resource Management was prepared in conjunction with the Development Plan to assure that there would be proper ongoing management of the park as it is proposed. The park planning process commenced in 1990, and at that time the first public meeting was held to discuss the development of the park. At the public meeting a Citizens Advisory Committee was formed, and the 40 members consisted of local homeowners, special interest groups, City and County staff members, Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service, and others expressing an interest in the project. Ms. Murray discussed the Committee's agenda over a period of one and one- half years. The Committee developed park goals to establish a consensus on where to go with the park, and how to make decisions on future development and management issues relating to the park, resulting in a park plan that established a balance of . recreational needs. The Upper Newport Bay is one of the refuges -36- COMMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX that remain for a large number of rare, sensitive, and endangered animals and plants. The significance of the site and the sensitivity of the resources as well as deed restrictions dictate that all development should be limited on the site and to focus primarily. on resource, interpretation, and management. Ms. Murray advanced to the display area where she described the parcels of the Upper Newport Bay: the Eastbluff parcel, Santa Ana Heights Parcel, and Westbluff parcel. The Eastbluff parcel has Back Bay Drive as its boundary along the bay. The County has proposed two small parking bay areas that would hold eight vehicles each, revegetation, and a trail that would provide pedestrian and bicycle access to Eastbluff Park. The Santa Ana Heights parcel would maintain pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle access to San Diego Creek, formalizing it on the Orange County Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails. The County intends to revegetate the site with natural or native plant materials, providing access for pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle access to Mesa Drive and revegetating and consolidating the trails to Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. The County proposes pedestrian and bicycle access across the Channel and recommends keeping the equestrians on the approved Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails so as to take access to the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel and through San Diego Creek. In reference to the Westbay parcel, Ms. Murray stated that the County, in conjunction with the City's Public Works Department, is preparing construction documents for a cooperative project in design and construction of a bicycle trail. The deed restrictions request an Interpretative Center within 500 feet of the intersection of University Drive and Irvine Avenue. She described the areas that are proposed for the pedestrian trails. Commissioner Glover stated that she was proud that The Irvine Company gave the land for a regional area for the public. . However, she stated that she was disappointed that the EIR -37- COMMSSIONERS , WONN%%\0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX devoted only a few pages to the alternatives. Mr. Gary Medeiros County Environmental Planning Division, appeared before the Planning Commission. He explained that the EIR includes a range of alternatives that cover from no project to restrictive use. to the trails that are proposed. Commissioner Glover expressed her concern that the County was proposing a 10,000 to 12,000 square foot Interpretative Center and the taxpayers would have to contribute $6 million. She concluded that the proposal has become a development project instead of open space. Mr. Fisher reappeared before the Planning Commission to respond to Commissioner Glover's concerns. Mr. Fisher explained that the park consists of 140 acres, and the Interpretative Center would serve 800 acres of the Upper Newport Bay, including the ecological reserve. The Interpretative Center would house the County Park Ranger staff and the State Department of Fish and . Game staff. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the groups that have opposed the proposal, Ms. Murray replied that the equestrian people would like to have access on the Westbay parcel, and off -road or dirt bicycle users would like to have access throughout the Westbay parcel. Bicyclists and pedestrians would like to have access to the water's edge; however, the park property does not go to the water's edge. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards regarding the proposed Westbay bicycle path, Ms. Murray explained that the City approached the County and informed them that street improvements needed to be made on Irvine Avenue. The City indicated that bicycle improvements could be made via a cooperative agreement between the County and the City. The idea would be to share in the cost and development of one bicycle trail and to provide a more pleasant experience for the bicycle riders by removing them from Irvine Avenue and to give them more of a park experience by allowing them to meander along Irvine Avenue and University Drive. The pedestrian path would be constructed inside the bicycle trail. -38- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u 1-1 AnM ?.7. 1901 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Patrick Marr, Architect from Ron Yeo's office, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he described the location and design of the Interpretative Center on the Westbay parcel off of University Drive indicating that it would scarcely encroach in to the view of the Back Bay. He explained that the structure would be located mostly underground to retain the natural look of the site. The roof would be covered with native grasses to fit in with the character of the site. The 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center would provide an expansive view of the bay; would be divided into non -public areas and public areas; approximately 3,600 square feet would consist of exhibit area; offices would be provided for the County Ranger and Fish and Game staff; public restrooms; exhibit preparation; and library. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Marr explained that the two towers would identify the Interpretation Center, and they would function as wind towers to provide circulation within the building. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Ms. Murray explained that according to the biologists the region is an area in Southern California that has the potential for native grasslands, and native grasslands are significant for habitat in the area. Commissioner Glover addressed her concerns regarding water conservation and the need to irrigate the new native vegetation that would replace the existing vegetation. Ms. Murray explained that it would be necessary to irrigate the new vegetation for a year or two to establish the new vegetation. Commissioner Pomeroy was cognizant that specific grasses have been introduced in Southern California that are not native, and the grasses tend to choke out the habitat for animals. The Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife staffs are attempting to do their job to be certain that there is an environmental balance, and there are those individuals who use an Environmental Document to stop anything from occurring. An Interpretative Center is appropriate -39- 4 COMMISSIONERS \0 1 \0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX for the overall area of the Back Bay; however, what appears to have happened is an almost elitist use of the parcel and the public is being restricted. The environment has been used as a method to restrict the public, and he concluded that there is not an environmental balance in the EIR. Ms. Carla Brockman, 2700 Harbor View Drive, and a property owner on Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Brockman stated that when The Irvine Company gave the property to the County one of the precluded uses for the property was office space wherein she indicated that over 50 percent of the Interpretative Center would be used for office space. She questioned the need for over 5,000 square feet of office space. The EIR addresses Current Human Use, Alternative 6.5, to allow an Interpretative Center, and to provide the public with the use that currently exists; however, improvements would be made to the parks and trails that need to be developed to prevent further erosion. The County would not be liable for injury because there is no liability in the State of California for anyone that enters a property if it is for recreational purposes. Ms. Brockman addressed her concerns regarding the restrictions of the Westbay parcel. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Ms. Brockman replied that she does not oppose the Interpretative Center. Ms. Brockman stated that the land was deeded into two parcels whereby she pointed to the Eastbay and Westbay parcels on the display maps, and the EIR addresses three parcels. The passive uses dictated in the deed for the Westbay parcel were hiking, biking, equestrian, barbecuing, picnics, and nature study. Ms. Brockman referred to the enlarged photographs that she had taken of the Santa Ana Heights area and established equestrian trails, and she pointed to the Santa Ana Heights areas that provide for 400 horses. She further explained that 400 horses are housed on the County Fairgrounds. The equestrians currently use the Westbay parcel; however, the proposed plan would only allow the equestrians to use a one mile trail from the Delhi Channel to Jamboree Road, with dogs on leashes which would now be precluded on the Westbay parcel. She expressed her concerns that one trail would accommodate equestrians, dogs on leashes, -40- V0\F1R%11P44\-\k1110 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 22, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX bicyclists, and pedestrians in a one mile area, and the removal of the existing vegetation. She suggested the "No Plan", Alternative 6.1, or "Current Human Usage ", Alternative 6.5, which would allow the Interpretative Center and the equestrians in the Westbay. parcel. Santa Ana Heights is in the City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence, and the City s plan would allow a commercial stable overlay that would increase the number of horses in the area. Santa Ana Heights wants to be a unique part of the community that is respected, and the residents have a desire to use the area that they considered their neighborhood. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that it appears an appropriate solution would be if the Commission does not approve the County proposal that the County would come back with another proposal rather than attempt to select an alternative that has not been given the same amount of time and diligence. Mr. Hewicker responded . that the Commission makes all of their recommendations directly to the City Council. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Brockman replied that the residents are requesting equestrian use of the Westbay parcel which is encouraged and suggested in the deed of gift. He asked Ms. Brockman if she would oppose the park if there was a defined trail in the Westbay parcel whereby she said that she would not necessarily appose the project, particularly if the trail would be located on the blufftop. Mr. Jim Evans, 20372 Cypress, Santa Ana Heights, and a Mariners Mile businessman, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Evans stated that he has been very involved with the project and he has been a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee. He indicated that there are many people who are not happy with the project and he concluded that the City is being "boon - doggled" by the County. He addressed his personal involvement regarding the Westbay parcel when be was employed by The Irvine Company. He stated that he did not agree with the County that equestrian and bicycle uses cannot be used because of a biological problem. . Mr. Evans agreed that there is a biological and very sensitive area; -41- fo��P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Aoril 22. 1993 ROLL CALL DMEX however, equestrian use is not ruining it If the bicycle trail is proposed to be paved then it should be reconsidered. He emphasized his desire that the proposal be studied carefully by the City. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Evans replied that the proposal is not a consensus of the people. He opposed the idea that the parcels are sensitive biological areas and that specific uses cannot be tolerated. He expressed his opposition to the 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center and the parking area. He suggested that an alternate Interpretative Center be considered, i.e. a vehicle that could be mobilized to the schools. He opposed the proposed $6 million that it would cost for the proposal. He questioned the County's objective whereby he commented that it is the City's responsibility to protect the citizens . and what is occurring on the parcels. Commissioner DiSano and Mr. Evans discussed the feasibility of providing mixed -uses that are compatible with the parcels. Commissioner Glover addressed the Alternatives listed in the EIR and she referred to the Current Level of Human Activities that includes the 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center, fountains, and multiple areas of cement and signage, and she concluded that it would become a modernized urban situation. She asked if there could be a balance between human activity and environmental concerns whereby she indicated that she opposes the idea of the park turning into a development project. She asked if there could be a current level of human activity and also meet environmental concerns. Mr. Evans explained his opinions why there needs to be moderation on both sides, and he suggested that riding and hiking trails could be properly designed as common use areas. Ms. Kathy Mobs, teacher in the Newport-Mesa School District, appeared before the Planning Commission to emphatically express her support of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park as it currently exists; that there is no need for an Interpretative Center; -42- •� k0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH uu ► F'i�iFi5-1;� April 22. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX and the students tour the Upper Newport Bay frequently and there are parking spaces available for the school busses. Ms. Martha Wetzel, 13742 Onkayha, Irvine, appeared before the. Planning Commission. She said that she is the Chairman of the City of Irvine Riding and Hiking Trail Committee. The action by the City of Newport Beach regarding the Regional County Park will affect the County Riding and Hiking Trail System. The denial of equestrian access in the Westbay parcel and the failure of the County to provide an equestrian staging area in the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park are counter to the County's Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails, and would affect many more people than just the local equestrians. She said that it was apparent from the outset that the ultimate plan for the Westbay parcel to exclude equestrians and include a large Interpretative Center was determined before public input began. She addressed the staff report statement that The purpose in limiting the amount of space devoted to trails is to maximize the area for native vegetation and wildlife habitat and she asked how that would be achieved by constructing a 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center with towers and a parking lot. Ms. Wetzel indicated that she is not categorically opposed to an Interpretative Center but she is if it would be developed at the expense of the riding and hiking trails supported by existing documents: City of Newport Beach General Plan; City of Irvine General Plan; and the Orange County Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails. She addressed a statement in the report that previous equestrian access to the parcels was unregulated wherein she explained that it is so but it was not illegal. She recommended that the Commission consider Alternative "No Project" or "Alternative 5 ". The consensus of 80 plus people at an August, 1990, meeting which allowed for limited equestrian use on the Westbay parcel was never included in the minutes of the meeting. Ms. Wetzel recommended the following mitigating measures: require the County to provide an equestrian staging area in or near Upper Newport Bay near the Delhi Channel as described in • -43- COMMISSIONERS foWA%*\N0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Anril 21 1993 ROLL CALL INDFX the Master Plan, and require the connecting link between Trails 44 and 45 be drawn on the map. Chairman Edwards determined that the County is proposing. preservation and restoration and at the same time introduce items that would be introducing further deterioration of the area and also too much structure without giving credence to some of the suggestions that have been presented to them. He said that what he is looking at is the manner in which to maintain the present state of the property with certain amounts of restoration, i.e. runoff and trash problems. He asked Ms. Wetzel if she could see a way to maintain the status quo and allow restoration of the area to a more pristine area and allow the continued mixed -use. Ms. Wetzel responded that there is an Alternative that allows equestrian use on existing trails at the blufftop and allows for an . Interpretative Center at a more modest size. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Ms. Wetzel replied that Alternative A is included in the June 6, 1990, document. Commissioner Glover commented that the foregoing Alternative indicates that a method of identification would allow markers on the ground if there would not be an Interpretative Center to designate the plants. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Wetzel explained that Interpretative Centers can be quite rustic, and she recommended that the facility could be built to a maximum of 5,000 square feet whereby she expressed her opposition to the subject site being used for office space or for private organizations. Commissioner Merrill and Ms. Wetzel discussed the documents that included her comments. Chairman Edwards stated that Ms. Wetzel recommended an Alternative at the Citizens Advisory Committee that was the consensus of the Advisory Committee. It was her opinion that the comments would be considered an Alternative which would be included in the EIR; however, the comments were not included as an Alternative but were included -44- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Anril T).._ 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX as required in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the comments were responded to as required under CEQA: Mr. John Boertje, 2412 Azure, appeared before the Planning. Commission to express his concerns that if the open field above the bird sanctuary is developed that there would be numerous restrictions. Mr. Boertje submitted photographs of the Westbay area depicting fenced off areas, and he presented the Commission with a framed photograph of the Back Bay as it presently exists. He emphatically expressed his comments that numerous people have enjoyed and used the undeveloped dirt trails that are located in a natural setting. Mr. Frank Robinson, 1007 Nottingham Road, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Friends of Newport Bay, who have participated in and support the County proposal. In response to aforementioned comments, Mr. Robinson referred to the staff report's map of existing trails in the Westbay area wherein be explained that as the areas are cut up to become smaller that the animals are being wiped out instead of being reduced. One purpose for the project is if the area would be consolidated that there would be a much better chance for restoration. The Friends of Newport Bay have guides who try to keep the public together and the proposed trails would prevent damage to the area. The Interpretative Center would provide services for a total system. Mr. Robinson stated that the deed restrictions from the Irvine Company states that the park shall be compatible with the reserve which puts everything in a much higher standard to protect the reserve, i.e. the horses are not permitted in the reserve even though they have been there for many years and dogs running loose are nothing but hunters. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it would appear that there are individuals who want the land to be an ecological reserve. However, it was his understanding that when it was dedicated that it would be a regional park, just not a part of the ecological reserve. It would appear that public access has been severely • restricted from what everyone thought was going to happen. Mr. -45- COMMSSIONERS � k %tea CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Anril 27. 199 ROLL CALL INDEX Robinson said that in 1975 when the reserve was created that there was very serious consideration for including the Westbay parcel at the time. He said that there are no restrictions on people inasmuch as the documents indicate that the public can. enter the park when it is not open. He commented that when parcels are cut up into trails that it definitely affects the erosion. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that one non -paved trail for bicycle use and one non -paved trail for equestrian use along the top of the bluff be considered. Mr. Robinson replied that if an equestrian trail would be included as a part of the County Trail System, it would not just open it up to the local people in Santa Ana Heights, but to people using horse trails throughout the County. Commissioner Glover stated that she was surprised that Mr. Robinson supports the amount of development that is proposed. . Mr. Robinson replied that one of the services of the Interpretative Center would be to bring the people together, to keep them in groups, and to advise them of the unusual area. He stated that the Friends of Newport Bay currently conduct a similar program on the Back Bay Road. He indicated that he foresees a deterioration of the area under the present uses. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Robinson replied that the guided tours conducted by the Friends of Newport Bay congregate on Back Bay Road in an open area. He said that the guided tours vary from between 200 to 500 people. Mr. Robinson expressed his support of the proposed Interpretative Center and he described how the facility would be used. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if Mr. Robinson had considered an off -site Interpretative Center and he referred to an adjacent building that would be available for use on University Drive. Mr. Robinson replied that he had not considered an off- site Interpretative Center and he did not know if an office building could be used. He commented that a certain ambiance would be created if the structure would be located on -site. -46- • �rhrl _ _ • il' 1010011R%-\1110 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 77 10011 ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Edwards said that there is a structure in the Dunes park that the Park Ranger operates from and public discussions are periodically held at the site regarding the Back Bay. He asked why there is a need for a duplication. Mr. Robinson replied that. the structure is located on private property and the building is used because nothing else is available. In response to Chairman Edwards regarding Mr. Robinson's earlier comments regarding horse trails, Mr. Robinson explained that the horse trails would be opened up to the Trail System. He further explained that he has been informed that horses are not allowed in special areas because the pounding of horses over a period of time destroys root systems. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy requested that staff provide information pertaining to the deed. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, . replied that it is a private deed between the County and The Irvine Company. As far as making an interpretation of what has occurred the City does not have the ability to enforce it, and the enforcement and the provisions are between the parties. Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that the deed states that certain uses are going to be permitted on the site, i.e.: hiking, bicycling, running, horseback riding, picnicking, environmental sensitive habitat mitigation staging areas for bicycles and equestrians, and nature study. Commissioner Ridgeway agreed that the documents do not include equestrian use and the deed indicates that equestrian use is a compatible use. He said that the Commission needs to know why the deed is not being respected. Mr. Hewicker said that there does not have to be an elaborate discussion of why an activity was eliminated, and there has been testimony as to why equestrian use was not considered. Chairman Edwards stated that the Commission is requesting a reasonable appraisal of what the deed means and as Mr. Hewicker indicated, the foregoing uses are permitted but they are not necessarily exclusive uses. Ms. Flory I tated that the Commission can make its own interpretation of the . deed. She said that the Commission makes a determination of the -47- COMUSSIONERS o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Anril 22. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX overall plan in connection with the EIR, and the deed can be considered, but as to enforcing the terms of the deed and making determinations from that point of view, the City would not do that. Commissioner Glover stated that what has been presented to the Commission has not been reasonable, i.e.: the Commission is not in a position to consider $6 million improvements on the piece of property when the citizens of the City want a more natural setting. She stated that it is a marvelous respite to drive by or to walk by the area because it is a natural environment. She said that her idea of an Interpretative Center would be four large posts with a covering, a structure that is natural and would fit in the setting, and where groups of people can begin tours. She does not consider an Interpretative Center to be gift shops, offices, etc. or a 500 car parking lot. She emphasized that the people should be able to use the regional park. The taxpayers would not understand . spending $6 million when the public is very cognizant of the economy of the State, County, and the City. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Fisher reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher explained that the $6 million comes from a variety of sources: private donations, grants, State grants, and County funds. None of the money would come from the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner Ridgeway requested that staff provide information with respect to how much land would be displaced if a defined equestrian trail would be created. He said that no where in the document is there a discussion about what land area is being displaced in the park. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the Interpretative Center is important to the overall 800 acre site. Revegetation, because there is deterioration, is important and if the grass that is there is damaging to the ecology, then revegetation should be considered. He said there is no way to convince him that equestrian use cannot be accommodated and bicycle use, and not be able to walk . a dog on a leash and not have it in conflict. The balance has gone -48- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ��liiot1jit A. ,;l 77 1002 ROLL CALL INDEX in the direction of individuals who believe that it should be an ecological area and not a regional park that can be used by the public. He said that he would not support what has been presented. Commissioner DiSano supported Commissioner Pomeroy's foregoing comments regarding the Interpretative Center and the revegetation. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue the General Plan Ayes * Amendment No. 92 -3(E), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. Absent 31, Amendment No. 779, and Use Permit No. 3488 to the May 6, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 11:45 p.m. Adjourn HARRY MERRILI, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -49-