Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2001• 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and KranzJey - Commissioner Gifford arrived at 6:40 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of May 3.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley, and voted on, to approve the amended minutes of May 3, 2001. Ayes: Kiser, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: McDaniel, Agajanian Absent: Gifford Public Comments: None POStina of the Aaenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, May 1 l , 2001. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 E SUBJECT: Newport Riverboat Restaurant 151 East Coast Highway Use Permit No. 3684 A request to permit outdoor dining in conjunction with the operation of an existing full- service restaurant /museum facility. The specific request includes; use of the bow and stern decks for Saturday and Sunday brunch; use of the bow deck adjacent to the Texas room in conjunction with a specified number of annual special events and private parties, and no outdoor music is proposed. Staff reported that this item is being continued to the Planning Commission hearing of June 7, 2001 at the request of the applicant. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue Use Permit No. 3684 to the Planning Commission hearing of June 7, 2001: Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Senior Housing in the GEIF District (PA2001 -075) An amendment to Section 20.25.020 (GEIF District: Land Use Regulations) of the Zoning Code to allow senior citizen housing in the Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) District with a use permit. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the Multi - Family Residential with the notation of L -2 designation is being added that limits the use to senior citizen housing as defined by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and California Civil Code. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to adopt Resolution No. 1528 recommending approval to the City Council of Code Amendment No. CA2001- 001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Gifford + ++ INDEX Item No. 1 Use Permit No. 3684 Continued to 06/07/2001 Item No. 2 PA2001 -075 Recommended for Approval City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 SUBJECT: Cafe II Fan 111 21st Place During the last meeting on May 3rd, Domenico Maurici, the owner and operator of Caf6 II Farro, addressed the Commission regarding the floor area limitation that effectively prohibits his ability to expand his restaurant. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a report on the issue. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich noted that staff has given the restaurant owner two options, to either move to a larger facility, or proceed with a General Plan Amendment on the property. There is no support to do a geographic, area wide General Plan Amendment. It seems that we should receive and file this staff report. Commissioner Tucker noted his agreement and stated that the owner just simply wants more footage on a lot that is built out. He is not alone; there are a lot of people who want that. I wouldn't suggest that he waste his money on a General Plan amendment. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to receive and file this report on . Cafe II Farro. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY 2001 -02 Review FY 2001 -02 Capital Improvement Program for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and other planning policy documents, and direct staff to present any recommendations to the City Council. Commissioner Kranzley excused himself from the meeting due to a prior commitment. Mr. Edmonston noted one correction on the project listed as number 46, Sunset View Park, Phase 2. The project is described as providing for design and construction where this actually provides for the purchase of the property. Commissioner Agajanian asked why the Economic Development studies and CDBG Fair Housing Services, since both of these are service related, appear in Capital Improvement Projects? Ms. Temple answered that the City has historically put larger planning studies and other more operational items into the Capital Improvement budget. We 3 INDEX Received and Filed Item No. 4 CIP 2001 -02 Recommended for approval. City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 • 0 are slowly developing new budget nodules and line items to transfer these studies into the operational budgets of the various departments as opposed to the Capital Improvement Program, which really should be for infrastructure and physical improvements. Commissioner Gifford asked about the Storm Drain Improvement Program on page 9 noting that most of the funding is going to Balboa Boulevard from Medina to 12th Street. Are there future years in which Balboa Boulevard storm drain improvements are being funded? Mr. Edmonston answered that there are on -going projects. The next one is from 121h to 16th Streets and from there on up. There is a series of matching improvements and this budget item will be used to do the drainage work associated with each phase. Commissioner Gifford then asked if there is any overlap with the improvements here for storm drains and the improvements to Balboa Village? Mr. Edmonston answered that the Balboa Village project has a more complex series of fundings associated with it. There is drainage work in that project, but if it shows up here, it is my understanding that the Balboa Village item is separate and not in this item. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich that the Planning Commission finds that the Capital Improvement Program FY 2001 -02 is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code and other planning policy documents and direct staff to present this recommendation to the City Council. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley •ti SUBJECT: Proposed Harbor and Bay Element • (PA2001 -050) The Harbor and Bay Element is a new optional element of the General Plan intended to address uses of the water and waterfront property in Newport Bay and Harbor. Senior Planner Patrick Alford noted the following excerpts from the staff report: • Add a new element to the General Plan. • The new element would provide for five major goals: ➢ Diverse use of the harbor by setting priorities of land use established by current Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act. ➢ Public access to the Harbor, provision of parking, launch ramps, moorings and other forms of access. INDEX Item No. 5 PA2D01 -D50 Recommended for Approval City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 ➢ Environmental protection with the emphasis on water quality and cooperation with the various resource agencies that have jurisdiction over the Harbor and Bay, particularly the Upper Newport Bay ➢ Visual character with the emphasis on the aesthetics of harbor structures and the protection of harbor landmarks. ➢ Administration with emphasis on coordination with the County, State and Federal agencies that have jurisdiction over the waters of the harbor and the provision for the facilities necessary for the on -going administration and maintenance of the harbor • The Economic Development Committee reviewed this proposed element and has unanimously recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. • This item is to be reviewed by the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee on May 21 :f Commissioner Tucker questioned at what point does the Planning Commission jurisdiction start and what is to be done when an application is received. The Element seems to deal with what starts as the project line into the Bay, but there are references to what happens on the land that is next to the Bay or adjacent to the Bay and, in one or two cases, it is not clear how far from the Bay one gets before a policy comes into effect. • Mr. Alford explained that it is not the intent to establish exact lines of demarcation, particularly on review authority. This will be an Element of the General Plan so the City will review projects against this and other policies of the General Plan. It is a matter of which policies are applicable. If there is a land use issue, for example, that could affect harbor operations, there are several policies here that could come into play and the project would have to be analyzed for consistency with those policies. Commissioner Tucker noted that if the Planning Commission gets an application for a Use Permit for a use that is within the project line next to the Bay, that application is consistent with the zoning of the property but do we then look at what the policies are in this Element to decide whether to grant the Use Permit even though it may be a use that is consistent with the zoning? Does it go that far? Mr. Alford answered that if there is discretion involved, most likely there is a finding that it has to be consistent with the General Plan. The application would have to be reviewed against the applicable policies of this Element. Consistency with zoning would not be the only issue. The hope is that the zoning is implemented in such a way that it is always consistent, however, there are always some uses that need additional review. Commissioner Tucker then asked about Objective HB- 1.1.2: 'When reviewing proposals for land uses changes, the City shall consider the impact on water dependent and water - related land uses and activities and the importance of 5 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 providing adequate sites for facilities and services essential to the operation of the Harbor....' How far from right on the bulkhead, does that extend? If we have a boat yard that is 100 yards off the water and not on the street do we look at that? Mr. Alford answered that the Planning Commission will have to use its best judgement on how for to extend. The intent is to deal mainly with the uses within the immediate vicinity of the Bay. If, for example, there was a land use that might introduce residential land uses in an area that has been predominately commercial, particularly our marine /recreational commercial uses, then it is possible that future residences there might produce a land use conflict with those uses and could endanger future operations. That would be one factor to be taken into consideration, if you are looking at a potential land use change. If it is not a zoning or land use amendment, like a mixed use project similar to the one in Cannery Village /McFadden Square area that the Commission heard recently, this was introducing land uses into an area that was primarily commercial and there was a question of compatibility. Commissioner Tucker then asked about, ..... However, in no case, shall the protection of such land uses, activities, facilities, and services deny an owner viable economic use of the property.' Viable and highest use, or even close to highest use, are not necessarily the same. Certainly a property could have • many potential uses, some viable but perhaps not the highest and best use, or the use desired by that ownership. How do we deal with something like that? Mr. Alford answered that it would be addressed as a land use issue. You have to provide viable economic use of the property. He then added that this was one of the major issues the Harbor Committee had to deal with and that is how do you protect certain uses that are considered essential to the operation of the harbor but still protect property rights. You do have to maintain the viable economic use of the property so you are not involved in a taking. At the same time, you have to provide a number of incentives or other mechanisms to try and encourage those uses to continue. Looking at that in combination with the other policies and that major goal, the overall intent is clear that it is meant to achieve that balance between the protection of private property rights and the protection of those uses that are necessary for the continued operation of the Harbor. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Alford noted: In 1999 the City Council appointed a thirteen member Harbor Committee. They were given the broad charge of making recommendations concerning the activities of the Harbor to the City Council. A major project has been the proposed Harbor Element that has taken two years to draft. The Committee is made up of a number of residents, commercial business owners and general users of the Harbor. �J INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 Commissioner Kranzley, referring to page 3 of the proposed Element, diversity of uses and objectives. You have the five uses, are they prioritized? Mr. Alford answered that the order of the diversity of uses is not indicative of priority. The Local Coastal Plan and Coastal Act do recognize that the highest priority be given to water dependent uses. The ones that we have identified as water enhanced or other uses are of a lower priority. Commissioner Kranzley, referring to page 4, asked about public parking and public access for all waterfront uses. What does that mean, more or the same amount only better? I certainly do not want more parking on the Peninsula, because there is never enough. I agree with improving existing parking, but I do not agree with providing more parking. Referencing page 7, he asked if the docks at the Balboa Bay Club were for member use or public use? The land is city owned and leased to the club. Ms. Clauson noted that the marina and dock are all part of the ground lease that the City entered into with the Balboa Bay Club. There was provision of lease payments to the City, but I don't know if we negotiated, as part of that, a certain percentage of the docks to be available for public use. Continuing, Commissioner Kranzley, referring to page 16, '..identifying areas and • buildings representative of the history of Newport Harbor, and encourage their preservation and reuse'...how are we going to do that? Will it be based on date built? For instance, the Cannery Restaurant was built in the '70's, yet there are people in Newport who feel that is a landmark. How will this be determined, as there will be some restrictions placed on those buildings? I think that owners of those buildings may have concerns about what this means to their properties. Ms. Clauson answered that this is a policy document, so the implementation of that will be part of the next step in the process. It is an interesting concept, as there is a difference between what is considered a landmark and something that has historical architecture. Making determinations will be part of this policy that we will look at on something, whether it is a landmark versus whether architecturally it's an historic building. Originally, the Cannery was there. The architecture was new and rebuilt to reflect the historical landmark of the fact that there was a cannery there. Commissioner McDaniel noted he shares some of the concerns expressed. It needs to be somewhat general, although we are used to something more specific. I understand that CalTrans has questions as well as the Department of Toxic Substance Control and of course the Coastal Commission. If we send this forward, does the document need to be tighter? Mr. Alford answered that these agencies were asked to comment on the Negative Declaration that was prepared. As stated in the report, none of them identified major environmental issues and I think that some of what they said INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 could be taken out of context as boiler plate responses to projects that are more specific. In the case of the Coastal Commission, they did have a number of comments, and I think that again the case is where they have identified certain issues and have more or less pointed out things that they are interested in as they review documents submitted to them for approval. This is relevant because we are beginning the process of starting with the certification of our Local Coastal Program (LCP) and integration of the Harbor Element into that program and there will be major issues. I think the Coastal Commission just basically wanted their issues known up front. They did not identify any inconsistencies with the Coastal Act, or our LCP, so I don't think that it necessarily leads to any significant revisions. However, if you feel that it is appropriate that we address their comments directly, we can go back and work on the document and try to re -word the language so that it addresses their concerns. Basically, we feel the document is fine in its current form. Ms. Temple added that she was in a meeting today with the Coastal Commission staff and this question did come up. They did not indicate any serious problem with what was done with this proposed Element. Their primary issue was maintaining internal consistency between this Element and our existing Land Use Plan and how they see the certification process moving forward. They just gave us a heads up, but did not express to us that they felt the Harbor Element in and of itself was going in the wrong direction. • Commissioner Agajanian brought up public access (HB -2) and visual character (HB -4) stating that neither of these make a statement about accessing view or that the visual character of the harbor is of value. There are no policies related to the view shed of the harbor. Is this covered in other documents, or is it excluded in this one for a particular reason? Ms. Temple answered that significant public views have been identified for preservation as we consider land use decisions in our Local Coastal Plan currently. Commissioner Kiser, referring to page 3 of the staff report, noted that, '.. the Coastal Commission did not identify any direct conflicts with the Coastal Act and only suggested revisions that .......and expand upon Coastal Act policies.' Would this proposed Harbor Element expand upon Coastal Act policies? Mr. Alford explained that the paragraph states that the Coastal Commission didn't identify any conflicts, however, they did feel that there were certain things that needed additional attention. For example, because we allow waterfront residential communities, they point out to us that those are very low priority in the coastal zone. They suggested that perhaps there should be more discussion or clearer language in the Element to make that point known. Similarly, there was a comment dealing with protection of sensitive marine biology like the eelgross. The wanted additional language addressing that. In short, they had certain things that were very important to the Coastal Commission and they wanted more emphasis in the document, however, they 8 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 did not go so far to say that the Harbor Element was lacking or somehow inconsistent with Coastal policies. They just wanted to elaborate on the issues they felt were important. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Alford stated that this document does not enhance the authority or expand the authority of the Coastal Commission in approving projects in Newport Beach. Adding issues expressed by the Coastal Commission would also not give them more power, it would only place a greater emphasis on the parts they consider important. Commissioner Agalanian asked if the encouragement of the creation of a single waterfront public pedestrian space was an urban design decision at this point, or is there an interest on multiple points on the waterfront as a target for our development? Mr. Alford answered that the committee felt that something like this was necessary to serve as a focal point for Harbor activities. One of the things they want to do is to make sure the Harbor is user friendly and that those facilities are identifiable and there would be an area on the waterfront that would be recognizable enough as the center of the Harbor. The policy calls for encouraging a focal point. Other policies in the document indicate that there should be some connection between the various activity areas in the Harbor. . Water taxis and other types of access are considered in the document. Public comment was opened. Mr. Seymour Beek, 528 So Bay Front, spoke as Chairman of the Harbor Committee noting that the discussion brought up several good points about this document. These are also the same points that the Committee spent considerable time on, particularly the point of balancing private property rights and the interest of diversity in the Harbor. These are difficult issues and we came out with a lot of compromises in the document. I think it is one that all of the Committee members will stand behind and are quite happy with. Continuing, he noted the diversity of the membership of the Committee: bayside businesses were represented, the homeowners were amply represented particularly the Bayside residents, mooring owners were represented and the document reflects this diverse representation. Commissioner Kranzley commended Mr. Beek for the work done on the document. He asked the speaker for comments on parking and impacts on the Peninsula caused by parking. Mr. Beek noted his agreement about the parking on the Peninsula. However, the committee did not come up with specific issues of parking, but in working on the document, the committee realized that there is certainly an interaction between the things we talk about here and roads and parking. However, we did not feel it appropriate to go into them within this document, although there • clearly is a relationship. 9 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 Commissioner McDaniel asked about the CalTrans and Coastal Commission interface. Did you meet with them while drafting this document? Mr. Beek answered that there was no meeting with CalTrans or Coastal Commission representatives. There was no involvement in the draft of the document. The city staff sent copies to the Coastal Commission staff and various other agencies as a courtesy to get their reaction and comments. Burt Ohlig, 305 Morning Star Lane noted his appreciation of the protection being afforded the bay. He noted the following: Protecting - equal balance for families, retirees for the limited access that exists on the bay. Activities on the water are disruptive to the neighborhood, as water tends to carry sound. In certain bay areas, elevations create a 'bowl'. The enforcement occurring now is inadequate. I question whether an activity center should be in this Element, or a more suitable site for activities where there is a better opportunity for sound attenuation. • Waivers and incentives are mentioned in the document. What is the trigger and what are the benefits? In conclusion, he noted that the rest of his comments are contained in his letter . that was sent to the Commission May 14th. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker then asked: Page 3, Goal HB -1 #3 - add, 'including to but not limited to'. Staff answered yes this could be done, as this item refers to any commercial uses that are water enhanced. • Page 5, HB -1.2 - does that refer to water dependent, water related and water enhanced commercial uses or are you referring to uses that are actually in the harbor as defined in the glossary? Staff answered that it is referring to those commercial uses that actually occur within the harbor and also any support facilities that might occur on land. These uses are not completely dependent on water services. Page 8, HB -1.4 - If you have something that has nothing to do with the charm or character of the harbor are you then not encouraging the redevelopment of outdated and antiquated development? Would it be proper to say something to the effect that, 'to encourage the maintenance of the charm and character of the harbor"? Staff answered that is not the intent. Basically the emphasis is on the protection of the commercial areas that are around the harbor that exist and should be protected. Following a brief discussion, it was decided that this paragraph could be re- worded, as the intent is to state that when you do have an antiquated commercial development, that it should be redeveloped and to emphasize that we would like to see it occur in such a way that it would maintain the charm and 10 `II�Ir1� City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 character of the Harbor. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve the Negative Declaration making the findings contained in Exhibit 1; and adopt Resolution No. 1529 recommending approval to the City Council of GPA 2000 -002 (C) subject to the findings for approval stated in the resolution with the changes suggested by Commissioner Tucker. Continuing, he added that unless we find something overly objectionable that we disagree with, that we should not change this proposed document. The committee has worked on it for two years and a lot of work has gone into it. I would be reluctant to change the wording. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None SUBJECT: New Subdivision Code City- initiated amendment to revise the City's Subdivision Code (Title 19 of the • Municipal Code) and to make related changes to Title 20 (Zoning Code), Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Property), and other Titles. Ms. Temple noted that approximately 2 years ago, we had a few problematic requests for minor subdivisions and we discovered a number of problems with our existing Subdivision Code, which is Title 19 in the Municipal Code. We also discovered that there are a number of areas within that chapter that had not been regularly applied in a number of years and are essentially outdated with the subdivision practices of the City and Public Works Department. As a result of that, the City Council initiated a comprehensive update to Title 19, which unfortunately did not come on as fast as we had hoped because the Planning Department was shifting staff resource allocations having to deal with several of the large development projects that you considered in the earlier part of last year. However, we have now completed the work, and this is the first look that you will have of the new Subdivision Code as drafted by staff with the assistance of an outside consultant. The organization of the Code Chapter has been totally reworked and put into what we consider a logical framework, which will allow for its use and ease of understanding and application. The current Public Works Standards have been highlighted in the Code based on the City's current subdivision practices.' From the Planning Department point of view one of the most important and key features of the updated Code is the revised findings that the Planning Commission or staff would need to make when design criteria contained within the chapter are granted exceptions. One of the struggles with the existing Title 19 is that in order to grant a waiver or exception from those design standards in the Code, the findings that need to be made were essentially . variance findings, a very high bar. In addition, the Subdivision standards 11 INDEX Item 6 Subdivision Code Discussion only City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 contained within that Code did not really account for contemporary subdivision practices which allow for a smaller lot design, zero lot designs, Z lots or other types of creative subdivision plans that are very commonly used in the County and in the Country. The new acceptance standards are based on the quality of the design and assurance that public and pedestrian access and circulation flow are all being maintained in an adequate fashion, but that will allow the Planning Commission to make those qualitative judgements as to the quality and appropriateness of the design, compatibility with surrounding subdivision and land use patterns. In working with the Public Works Department, we think we are about 98% of the way there, we are still noticing and making final adjustments in the most minor sense. When this returns to the Commission, there will be some staff suggested changes that we will outline for you in the next staff report. We intend to return this to the Commission in five weeks time on June 21 s'. Staff would request your direction if you would like to spend more time either individually or in subcommittee to go through more of the details. We offer you to meet with the consultant or Public Works and Planning staff to understand or discuss any details of the proposal. We would be happy to make those arrangements, just let us know. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that there are a lot of provisions in the Subdivision Code which based on current practice, might be considered antiquated. I think it is appropriate to look, particularly at the design standards to • see if this reflects our common practice. Now is the opportunity for qualitative judgements to be made as to whether those are still appropriate in today's contemporary subdivision world. There may be Commissioners with experience in this area that may have input they would like to make to Planning and the Public Works Department as to whether those should be maintained. Keeping our design criteria as adopted by the City Council was a goal of City staff, but to provide an effective route for exceptions as being a good framework, that is what we are proposing to you. Any Subdivision needs to be found consistent with the General Plan. If the General Plan update results in changes to density standards or other criteria relating to residential or commercial development then the Subdivision approved subsequent to that will have to be found consistent. Commissioner Kiser asked how this would change the process for a condominium conversion application. Ms. Temple answered that the principal difference is that rather than approving condominium conversion with only a Modification Permit, we are asking that a Parcel Map be filed. However, that is still acted upon by the Modifications Committee. It would add some increment of additional cost for a project proponent because they would have to have a map drawn, but that ends up usually having to be done in any case because the financing institutions tend to not want to finance projects without Subdivision Maps. One of the provisions that is different is that the Public Works Department want independent water and sewer laterals to be required. Currently there is a fairly easy route for an exception on the independent sewer laterals. 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 Chairperson Selich noted it would be helpful if the Commission could get a copy of what the design standards are. Mr. Edmonton agreed that could be provided. Chairperson Selich noted that a couple of years ago a subdivision was approved that was on the Peninsula Point where four lots had been combined and the lot lines were eliminated. Then we approved a re- subdivision of that property back to the original configuration of the lots. How did we do that under the existing Code, and how is that process affected under the new proposed Code we have here? Ms. Temple answered that the City had a practice of granting substandard subdivision as to the stated standards in the design criteria and the Zoning Code based on its consistency with surrounding subdivisions. That was never actually criteria as a standard for granting an exception and was one of the problems with the Code where we were making decisions and findings that were not necessarily consistent with actual written requirements for exceptions. That was one of the triggering mechanisms, to look into and take on this project, and to at least grant the Planning Commission and City Council the flexibility to determine when a subdivision that did not meet the stated design criteria and the Subdivision Ordinance and Zone Code was acceptable in certain cases. Ms. Clauson noted that the concept is that the exception standards were more difficult to meet at the time and there was an on -going practice of looking at the underlying subdivision and using that as a factual basis for approval. Chairperson Selich affirmed that under the proposed ordinance there is a procedure that would allow the Commission to legitimately do that. What would happen if somebody came in with a project tomorrow and had that same thing in it, would we have the ability under the existing Code to make those some findings? Ms. Temple answered you could if the Commission felt comfortable making the special circumstance finding that the current Code requires. Discussion followed on current and past practices; provisions of Title 19; findings and conditions and advice given to people. Ms. Temple then referred the Commission to 19.24.130 C 1 through 7 and asked that they look at these findings that would allow deviation from design standards. Commissioner Agajanian noted that there are two issues with this item. One of them is how are we changing the existing document and the second is whether we have excluded things that should be here. I need time to look at this. Ms. Temple noted that the double underline in the document represents what • staff has added that are not necessarily prohibited by, but are not actually set 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 21)01 forth in the Subdivision Map Act. The Code also has many additions that are reflective of the Subdivision Map Act, which were not in the existing document. We made sure that particular provisions, such as merger provisions and lot line adjustment provisions, are consistent with the Map Act. Commissioner Tucker questioned that in this particular case, if we were going to have a deviation, we need to have all seven of these findings? He was answered that was correct. Chairperson Selich asked about lot mergers and how we are going to be dealing With them. Ms. Clauson answered that most of the provisions are consistent with what we have now. There are minor changes on noticing and a couple of other items. I reviewed our merger provisions that we have now with the Map Act and they are pretty consistent. They are summarized in the staff report and we can clarify that when we come back for another hearing. The City has never used the lot merger provisions as long as I have been here. We have it as a tool of the Map Act. Public comment was opened. Philip Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive suggested two additional topics for dialogue: Include development standards within an ordinance that are otherwise subject to determination by the City Engineer. For example, the inclusion of hard street widths and grades. The difficulty in the ability to approve a deviation is that there is not enough latitude, here it requires an amendment to the ordinance. You have a set of public improvement policies for infrastructure that govern also divisions that is adopted by the City Council. There are too many design issues to deal with on specific improvement standards. I see inconsistencies about the inclusion of the park code standard. The narrative indicates that for private park improvements, up to 50% of the required fees or land owed in private facilities can be subject to credit. If you look at the text of the Ordinance itself, it limits the credit for private recreational facilities from 0 to 20% and seems to me to put a tough standard on providing credit. It does not mention the eligibility of a public trail on private property. I think that list should be added and I would think that there would be circumstances that the limitation of only 20% of the advantage of private facilitates is fairly severe. Public comment was closed. It was agreed that this item would be brought back to the Planning Commission meeting of June 215t for further review and discussion. • 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that at the last City Council meeting the Council adopted a packet of amendments to the City Council Policy Manual including Policy Kl, regarding the adoption and amendment of the General Plan, and they held a discussion regarding the EQAC and EDC composition and how the membership is appointed. Discussion continued regarding dates of submitted and deemed complete applications and notifications. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairperson Selich noted that the EDC made a recommendation to the City's General Plan Advisory Committee on items to be considered in the fiscal and economic study that is going to be done as part of the General Plan process. It will be forwarded to that committee next week for their meeting. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future . agenda for action and staff report - none. e.) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee -. No meeting as there was not a quorum. f.) Status report on Planning Commission requests - no changes. g.) Project status - none. h.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Gifford is excused from the meeting on June 71h. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m. STEVEN KISER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 15 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment