Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1985COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers F Ic A V m TIME: 7 :30 P.M. z c S m a m' z DATE: June 6, 1985 xM A 0 = M> X = o T m City Y f Newport Beach p n Rw CALL INDEX Present 11 xl x Ix Ix lx ( All Commissioners Present. • Motion Ayes Abstain Motion Ayes • 13 © x xix I EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney * x r STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of May 23, 1985 Motion was .made for approval of the May 23, 1985, Planning Commission Minutes, as amended, which MOTION CARRIED. Request for Continuance Planning Director James Hewicker recommended that Item No. 2, Use Permit No. 3147 be continued to June 20, 1985 as requested by the applicant. Motion was made to continue Item No. 2 to June 20, 1985 which MOTION CARRIED. 23 COMMISSIONERS • • June 6, 1985 of Newport Beach Use Permit No. 1461(Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of the Newport Center Auto Wash on property located in the C -O -H District. The proposed amendment includes a request to allow the retail sale of cut flowers from within the existing building, in conjunction with the automobile washing service. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 29 -34 (Resub- division No. 282) located at 150 Newport Center Drive, on the southwesterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: C -O -H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Planning Director James Hewicker commented that the purpose of Condition No. 4, stating that the use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval, is a condition that has been added to use permits as suggested by the Planning Commission. The condition puts the applicant on notice that if the amended use permit request is not exercised within 24 months that the use permit will expire. Commissioner Person confirmed that the purpose the Planning Commission requested the condition is that it puts the applicant on better notice that the request expires in 24 months, but the Municipal Code is written so that the request would expire in 24 months nonetheless. The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Dmohowski appeared before the Planning Commission representing the applicant. Mr. Dmohowski stated that the applicant agrees with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Dmohowski stated that Condition No. 4, as written, suggested that the entire use permit would expire in 24 months if the sale of cut flowers were not implemented within 24 months. Mr. Hewicker and Chairman Winburn recommended that the condition be modified to read: "that this "amended" use permit shall expire ".. -2- MINUTES INDEX No.1 F s C O a C T i" a W 9 D a r C) S C_ 0 O i O O O m i 2 a a a T m 9 • • June 6, 1985 of Newport Beach Use Permit No. 1461(Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of the Newport Center Auto Wash on property located in the C -O -H District. The proposed amendment includes a request to allow the retail sale of cut flowers from within the existing building, in conjunction with the automobile washing service. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 29 -34 (Resub- division No. 282) located at 150 Newport Center Drive, on the southwesterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: C -O -H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Planning Director James Hewicker commented that the purpose of Condition No. 4, stating that the use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval, is a condition that has been added to use permits as suggested by the Planning Commission. The condition puts the applicant on notice that if the amended use permit request is not exercised within 24 months that the use permit will expire. Commissioner Person confirmed that the purpose the Planning Commission requested the condition is that it puts the applicant on better notice that the request expires in 24 months, but the Municipal Code is written so that the request would expire in 24 months nonetheless. The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Dmohowski appeared before the Planning Commission representing the applicant. Mr. Dmohowski stated that the applicant agrees with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Dmohowski stated that Condition No. 4, as written, suggested that the entire use permit would expire in 24 months if the sale of cut flowers were not implemented within 24 months. Mr. Hewicker and Chairman Winburn recommended that the condition be modified to read: "that this "amended" use permit shall expire ".. -2- MINUTES INDEX No.1 Motion Ayes 0 COMPAISSIONERS X T x o m r r v p c m ) m p W U 9 p r 2 3 N O 3 0 0 0 p m o Ic m D M Z x 2 .7 Z M M m Ix Ix June 6, 1985 loll The public hearing closed at this time. Commissioner Goff made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 1461 (Amended) subject to the , findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ", including Condition No. 4 as follows: "amended use permit ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the sale of cut flowers will be incidental to the sale of gasoline and the operation of the car wash. 2. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the sale of flowers from within the existing building will not intensify the use of the site. 4. That the Police Department does not anticipate any problems. 5. That there is adequate off- street parking on the site. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. That no signs advertising the sale of flowers shall be permitted on the exterior of the building. 3. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval of this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon 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. 4. That this amended use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -3- MINUTES • Use Permit No. 3147 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to establish• a retail commercial nursery with outdoor display of plants and related items, on pro- perty located in the C -1 -H District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact size parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: Lots 61, 62 and 63 of Tract No. 1210, located at 1700 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast High- way, easterly of Mariner's Mile. ZONE: C -1 -H - APPLICANT: William Ray, Newport Beach OWNERS: Mr. and Mrs. William Ray, Newport Beach x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3147 to June x x x x x x x 20, 1985. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x x A. Use Permit No. 1965 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the expansion of the restaurant previously known as A.T. Leo's with on -sale alcoholic beverages and limited live entertainment and dancing and the use of tandem parking spaces with a valet parking service. The proposed amendment includes a request to convert portions of the existing restaurant into retail commer- cial and office space and reduce the restaurant parking requirement to one parking space for each 50 sq.ft, of "net public area ". AND B. Variance No. 1123 (Public Hearing) Request to permit a variance to the Zoning Code so as to allow a reduced parking requirement for the retail and office portions of the building, or a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit tandem parking with a full time valet parking service that would provide the required number of on -site parking spaces for the existing and proposed uses. MINUTES (A) s x = June 6, 1985 -0 9 S y ox a y I 1` 7 m E s °: _ X m s = City of Newport Beach as T m Use Permit No. 3147 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to establish• a retail commercial nursery with outdoor display of plants and related items, on pro- perty located in the C -1 -H District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact size parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: Lots 61, 62 and 63 of Tract No. 1210, located at 1700 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast High- way, easterly of Mariner's Mile. ZONE: C -1 -H - APPLICANT: William Ray, Newport Beach OWNERS: Mr. and Mrs. William Ray, Newport Beach x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3147 to June x x x x x x x 20, 1985. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x x A. Use Permit No. 1965 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the expansion of the restaurant previously known as A.T. Leo's with on -sale alcoholic beverages and limited live entertainment and dancing and the use of tandem parking spaces with a valet parking service. The proposed amendment includes a request to convert portions of the existing restaurant into retail commer- cial and office space and reduce the restaurant parking requirement to one parking space for each 50 sq.ft, of "net public area ". AND B. Variance No. 1123 (Public Hearing) Request to permit a variance to the Zoning Code so as to allow a reduced parking requirement for the retail and office portions of the building, or a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit tandem parking with a full time valet parking service that would provide the required number of on -site parking spaces for the existing and proposed uses. MINUTES (A) s x i s is T = XZ • u June 6, 1985 M i'. LOCATION: Lots 58 -67, Tract No. 673, located at 3901 East Coast Highway, on the south- easterly corner of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONES: C -1 and R -1 APPLICANT: Ernest George, Corona del Mar OWNER: Al Mayo, Irvine Planning Director James Hewicker reviewed the use permit request, and stated further that the Resubdivision requested by the Planning Commission in 1980 has not been recorded by the current owner, Mr. Mayo. Mr. Hewicker explained that the subject use permit is an interim use of the property pending long range approval by the City for further development. He stated that the property is in escrow to PMC Development Company, Mr. Earl Sherman, owner. Mr. Hewicker explained that the City Council has initiated a General Plan Amendment that, if approved, would allow for a use of the property as a senior citizens ambulatory conjugate care facility on the property. The plan would require a use permit, and a zone change so that the entire property would be within a single zoning district. In addition, the applicant is planning to apply for a resubdivision to combine the parcels into one building site to satisfy the requirements imposed by the Planning Commission 5 years ago. Mr. Hewicker cited that the Ming Dynasty Restaurant has signed a 2 year 3 month lease with Mr. Ernest George with an option for an additional 2 years 9 months, so that the Chinese Restaurant could be on the premises 5 years. Mr. Hewicker advised that staff was led to believe that there would be an interim use of 2 years while the owner processed development permits through the Planning Commission, City Council and Coastal Commission. He said that an eye care business that is on the premises will require Coastal Commission approval and that the applicant needs Coastal Commission approval to process the resubdivision. Mr. Hewicker commented that the original engineer who had prepared the parcel map with the County Recorder merged with another engineering firm, and instead of -5- MINUTES • • June 6, 1985 of Newport Beach the new property owner retaining the original engineer which would have shortened the permit process, he chose to assign a new engineer. Mr. Hewicker stated that instead of the restaurant closing down half of the operation during the noon hour to free up parking spaces for office and retail uses, a better solution would be to permit full operation of the restaurant and allow 1 parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area ", or 1 parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public area", so as to require a substantial reduction in the amount of square footage on site that is devoted to retail and office use. If there would be 64 parking spaces that are independently accessible, each 9 feet wide, at a standard of 1 parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area" for the restaurant, that would leave 8 parking spaces available for 2,000 square feet of office or retail uses; and 1 parking space per 50 square feet of "net public area" for the restaurant, would provide 19 parking spaces for 4,750 square feet of office and retail uses. He cited that the applicant has indicated that he is requesting 5,785 square feet of office and retail space, and staff has figured that the gross floor area is approximately 7,200 square feet, a difference of approximately 1,500 square feet between the applicant's and staff's calculations. Commissioner Person expressed his disapproval of Mr. Mayo for not applying for the necessary permits considering the controversy that was created in 1982, and that Mr. Mayo has apparently repeated the same mistake. Chairman Winburn stated that the Planning Commission considered to extend the parcel map for six months with the idea that the trust deeds would be cleared in May and then an additional three months would be necessary to record the map by July 29, 1985, and then there would be no need for further extension. In response to Chairman Winburn's question of why there is a problem now, Mr. Hewicker replied that the City has exercised one extension that the Planning Commission has authorized on the resubdivision. The trust deed holder is no longer involved, and the current owner can file the parcel map, but unless he utilizes the original engineer, the owner is putting the burden of recording the map on the new property owner. W-M MINUTES INDEX ;K F .1 c o x m z c m m z W a M z r A x C Z w O K 0 0 M 0 ma *i Z a z a x r m • • June 6, 1985 of Newport Beach the new property owner retaining the original engineer which would have shortened the permit process, he chose to assign a new engineer. Mr. Hewicker stated that instead of the restaurant closing down half of the operation during the noon hour to free up parking spaces for office and retail uses, a better solution would be to permit full operation of the restaurant and allow 1 parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area ", or 1 parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public area", so as to require a substantial reduction in the amount of square footage on site that is devoted to retail and office use. If there would be 64 parking spaces that are independently accessible, each 9 feet wide, at a standard of 1 parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area" for the restaurant, that would leave 8 parking spaces available for 2,000 square feet of office or retail uses; and 1 parking space per 50 square feet of "net public area" for the restaurant, would provide 19 parking spaces for 4,750 square feet of office and retail uses. He cited that the applicant has indicated that he is requesting 5,785 square feet of office and retail space, and staff has figured that the gross floor area is approximately 7,200 square feet, a difference of approximately 1,500 square feet between the applicant's and staff's calculations. Commissioner Person expressed his disapproval of Mr. Mayo for not applying for the necessary permits considering the controversy that was created in 1982, and that Mr. Mayo has apparently repeated the same mistake. Chairman Winburn stated that the Planning Commission considered to extend the parcel map for six months with the idea that the trust deeds would be cleared in May and then an additional three months would be necessary to record the map by July 29, 1985, and then there would be no need for further extension. In response to Chairman Winburn's question of why there is a problem now, Mr. Hewicker replied that the City has exercised one extension that the Planning Commission has authorized on the resubdivision. The trust deed holder is no longer involved, and the current owner can file the parcel map, but unless he utilizes the original engineer, the owner is putting the burden of recording the map on the new property owner. W-M MINUTES INDEX ROLL "/V\b51UNLK5 June 6, 1985 ,s x c o � The public hearing opened at this time, and Mr. Ernest x c m i George, 2865 East Coast Highway, appeared before the z c 2 m p; 0 0 M 9 City of Newport Beach = a originally purchased the subject property for Mr. Hewicker stated that Condition No. 9 of Use Permit No. 1965 (Amended) suggesting that no other building permits be issued on the property until the parcel map has been recorded, could be revised so as not to create a hardship for the restaurant and the eye care business on the property. There could be a stipulation that there would only be permits issued in conjunction with alterations associated with the restaurant and the optician, and that no permits would be issued for additional tenant development or no additional occupancy of the premises until the parcel map is recorded. Mr. George commented that if valet parking is provided during the lunch period of 11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m., one parking space per 250 square feet of floor area, should be adequate because after 2:00 p.m., the restaurant would be closed until 6:00 p.m. at which time the commercial businesses would close. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Eichenhofer, Mr. George stated that the new owner, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Mayo have agreed to file a parcel map immediately. Mr. Hewicker responded to questions posed by Chairman winburn, replying that the ownership of the property is currently under Mr. Mayo. Mr. Sherman, the owner in • escrow, may file and process the resubdivision, but Mr. Mayo will have to sign the map. Mr. Hewicker further replied that by starting the process over again and to go through the Coastal Commission, the resubdivision will take 4 to 6 months. -7- MINUTES The public hearing opened at this time, and Mr. Ernest George, 2865 East Coast Highway, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. George stated that Mr. Mayo originally purchased the subject property for redevelopment. Mr. George explained that at the time Mr. Sherman went into escrow with Mr. Mayo to.purchase the property, he leased the property on an interim • basis. Mr. George leased the property for five years from July 1, 1985, with the provision that if the new owner obtains a building permit for the project that the developer wants to build, his lease could be cancelled. Mr. George stated that the two tenants on the site have identical clauses in their leases, and that within three months notice beyond the first two years, their leases could be canceled after the building permit has been issued. Mr. George commented that if valet parking is provided during the lunch period of 11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m., one parking space per 250 square feet of floor area, should be adequate because after 2:00 p.m., the restaurant would be closed until 6:00 p.m. at which time the commercial businesses would close. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Eichenhofer, Mr. George stated that the new owner, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Mayo have agreed to file a parcel map immediately. Mr. Hewicker responded to questions posed by Chairman winburn, replying that the ownership of the property is currently under Mr. Mayo. Mr. Sherman, the owner in • escrow, may file and process the resubdivision, but Mr. Mayo will have to sign the map. Mr. Hewicker further replied that by starting the process over again and to go through the Coastal Commission, the resubdivision will take 4 to 6 months. -7- MINUTES • • Chairman Winburn opined that the City has been charitable to allow the Chinese Restaurant and the optician to continue prior to time the parcel map is filed. Chairman Winburn queried the useage of tandem and valet parking spaces, and how the retail and commercial businesses will be affected by the restaurant's 56 parking space requirements. Mr. George .replied that the subject parking spaces will be blocked off during the period that the restaurant is not open, and if needed, he will have an attendant available. Referring to the January, 1982, Planning Commission minutes, Chairman Winburn stated that no more than 94 parking spaces can be utilized, including tandem and valet parking. Mr. Webb and Mr. Laycock informed Chairman Winburn that only approximately 85 parking spaces could be developed on the property if there is a tandem layout meeting current design standards, and approximately 64 parking spaces if said spaces are independently accessible. Mr. Webb explained that if there would be attendant parking, that each parking space would be 8 1/2 feet wide, and if there would be independent parking, each parking space would be 9 feet wide, which would reduce the number to approximately 85 parking spaces. Chairman Winburn asked how many independently accessible parking spaces would there be for retail and commercial businesses? Mr. Webb replied that the actual parking layout in the field compared to what the plot plan shows, is different; for instance, a pole sign blocks off three parking spaces. Mr. George stated that he would be willing to remove the pole sign. Mr. George responded to questions posed by Chairman Winburn that he did not believe there would be an overlap of the 6:00 p.m. retail and commercial business closure and the restaurant business but if so, he would have valet parking.at that time of day. In response to Chairman Winburn's question if he approved of the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", which includes valet parking, Mr. George replied that he has no objection to valet parking if needed. Mr. George stated that he is concerned about the possible 4 to 6 month delay during the period that the parcel map is being recorded, and that this delay would affect his ability to lease additional spaces to other tenants in the building. In response to Commissioner Person, Mr. George replied that he entered into his lease 3 months ago, and at -6- MINUTES X x '" June 6, 1985 C o n F a v z _ C v i a m z c m> m z to M 9 C a 0 2 p; ; O T O City of Newport Beach a m Chairman Winburn opined that the City has been charitable to allow the Chinese Restaurant and the optician to continue prior to time the parcel map is filed. Chairman Winburn queried the useage of tandem and valet parking spaces, and how the retail and commercial businesses will be affected by the restaurant's 56 parking space requirements. Mr. George .replied that the subject parking spaces will be blocked off during the period that the restaurant is not open, and if needed, he will have an attendant available. Referring to the January, 1982, Planning Commission minutes, Chairman Winburn stated that no more than 94 parking spaces can be utilized, including tandem and valet parking. Mr. Webb and Mr. Laycock informed Chairman Winburn that only approximately 85 parking spaces could be developed on the property if there is a tandem layout meeting current design standards, and approximately 64 parking spaces if said spaces are independently accessible. Mr. Webb explained that if there would be attendant parking, that each parking space would be 8 1/2 feet wide, and if there would be independent parking, each parking space would be 9 feet wide, which would reduce the number to approximately 85 parking spaces. Chairman Winburn asked how many independently accessible parking spaces would there be for retail and commercial businesses? Mr. Webb replied that the actual parking layout in the field compared to what the plot plan shows, is different; for instance, a pole sign blocks off three parking spaces. Mr. George stated that he would be willing to remove the pole sign. Mr. George responded to questions posed by Chairman Winburn that he did not believe there would be an overlap of the 6:00 p.m. retail and commercial business closure and the restaurant business but if so, he would have valet parking.at that time of day. In response to Chairman Winburn's question if he approved of the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", which includes valet parking, Mr. George replied that he has no objection to valet parking if needed. Mr. George stated that he is concerned about the possible 4 to 6 month delay during the period that the parcel map is being recorded, and that this delay would affect his ability to lease additional spaces to other tenants in the building. In response to Commissioner Person, Mr. George replied that he entered into his lease 3 months ago, and at -6- MINUTES 0 M1 that time, he started construction. Mr. George commented that he 'did not believe that the restaurant needed a building permit, that he built a partition wall for the optician, and that he has been cleaning up the storage area. Commissioner Person queried why Mr. George did not check with the City to see if there was a problem with the parcel map. Mr. George said that he did make a mistake. Commissioner Turner asked if Mr. Sherman's escrow is contingent upon getting the approval of this amended use permit to lease the property? Mr: George replied that there is not a contingency, and he further stated that he currently has all of the necessary building permits. Mr. Earl Sherman, developer and owner in escrow; appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sherman said that he and his architect are currently working on a development proposal. Mr. Sherman stated that he was aware that he would need a parcel map, but was not aware that Mr. Mayo was negligent in filing a parcel map during the past two years. Mr. Sherman confirmed that he is filing an application for a parcel map. Mr. Sherman commented that he will be applying for a conditional use permit for a senior citizen complex. Mr. Sherman stated that if had known the urgency of the parcel map that he would have had it taken care of months ago. He said he and Mr. Mayo entered into a lease with Mr. George only on an interim basis, and that he is not directly involved with Mr. George and his tenants. In response to Commissioner Turner, Mr. Sherman replied that after approval from the City and Coastal Commission and the plans have been completed, that demolition could begin in one year; if so, he would short term Mr. George's lease but, he stated, Mr. George does have two years on said ..lease. In response to questions posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Sherman explained that if his proposed development would not be approved and he dropped his escrow with Mr. Mayo, Mr. George's lease with Mr. Mayo could continue up to 5 years. Mr.' Sherman further commented that he has the option to buy out Mr. George's lease, or Mr. George may .drop his lease in one year if his businesses are not doing well. Mr. Sherman explained -9- MINUTES. x k m June 6, 1985 � z.v x a s z r A x r W A a i m city Of m z M I M1 that time, he started construction. Mr. George commented that he 'did not believe that the restaurant needed a building permit, that he built a partition wall for the optician, and that he has been cleaning up the storage area. Commissioner Person queried why Mr. George did not check with the City to see if there was a problem with the parcel map. Mr. George said that he did make a mistake. Commissioner Turner asked if Mr. Sherman's escrow is contingent upon getting the approval of this amended use permit to lease the property? Mr: George replied that there is not a contingency, and he further stated that he currently has all of the necessary building permits. Mr. Earl Sherman, developer and owner in escrow; appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sherman said that he and his architect are currently working on a development proposal. Mr. Sherman stated that he was aware that he would need a parcel map, but was not aware that Mr. Mayo was negligent in filing a parcel map during the past two years. Mr. Sherman confirmed that he is filing an application for a parcel map. Mr. Sherman commented that he will be applying for a conditional use permit for a senior citizen complex. Mr. Sherman stated that if had known the urgency of the parcel map that he would have had it taken care of months ago. He said he and Mr. Mayo entered into a lease with Mr. George only on an interim basis, and that he is not directly involved with Mr. George and his tenants. In response to Commissioner Turner, Mr. Sherman replied that after approval from the City and Coastal Commission and the plans have been completed, that demolition could begin in one year; if so, he would short term Mr. George's lease but, he stated, Mr. George does have two years on said ..lease. In response to questions posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Sherman explained that if his proposed development would not be approved and he dropped his escrow with Mr. Mayo, Mr. George's lease with Mr. Mayo could continue up to 5 years. Mr.' Sherman further commented that he has the option to buy out Mr. George's lease, or Mr. George may .drop his lease in one year if his businesses are not doing well. Mr. Sherman explained -9- MINUTES. COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1985 of Newport Beach that he has been working on his proposed development during the past six months, and that it has been the intent that Mr. George would only lease on an interim basis. Mr. Sherman emphasized that Mr.. Mayo does not have any interest in his proposed development. In response to a question of Commissioner Turner regarding how he would feel if the Planning Commission approved the proposed project for 9 months, and then reviewed the status of the parcel map, Mr. Sherman replied that within four months, a final parcel map should be recorded; however, the parcel map is not contigent upon the development of the property. He further stated that the combined parcel will create a more valuable piece of property. Mr. Charles Prince, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the. applicant. Mr. Prince stated that the applicant is willing to cooperate with the City in an amicable configuration for a parking lot' layout. Mr. Robert Hull, appeared before the Planning Commission, on behalf of the Shorecliffs Homeowners Association. Mr. Hull expressed the homeowners' concern regarding the off - street parking in the neighborhood and the possible hazard at the Seaward Road and East Coast Highway intersection. Mr. Walter Zigler, 327 Poppy Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, on behalf of seven families on Poppy Avenue. Mr. Zigler expressed the neighbors' concerns regarding the Five Crowns Restaurant employees parking on Poppy Avenue and possibly the proposed restaurants' employees, wherein he asked for a condition requiring on -site parking. Chairman Winburn informed Mr. Zigler that Condition No. 5 so states. In response to a question posed by Mr. Zigler, Mr. Hewicker replied that there will be no entertainment at the proposed restaurant. Mr. George reappeared before the Planning Commission stating that the tenants are prepared to leave after two years, and that he has no plans to leave prior to that time. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Hewicker replied that the proposed businesses will not need individual Coastal Commission permission, but only the proposed uses in the building. =10- MINUTES INDEX x 0 S v m y v r a z c m s m z a s a z r n x m 0 r r m a E a E a s m m June 6, 1985 of Newport Beach that he has been working on his proposed development during the past six months, and that it has been the intent that Mr. George would only lease on an interim basis. Mr. Sherman emphasized that Mr.. Mayo does not have any interest in his proposed development. In response to a question of Commissioner Turner regarding how he would feel if the Planning Commission approved the proposed project for 9 months, and then reviewed the status of the parcel map, Mr. Sherman replied that within four months, a final parcel map should be recorded; however, the parcel map is not contigent upon the development of the property. He further stated that the combined parcel will create a more valuable piece of property. Mr. Charles Prince, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the. applicant. Mr. Prince stated that the applicant is willing to cooperate with the City in an amicable configuration for a parking lot' layout. Mr. Robert Hull, appeared before the Planning Commission, on behalf of the Shorecliffs Homeowners Association. Mr. Hull expressed the homeowners' concern regarding the off - street parking in the neighborhood and the possible hazard at the Seaward Road and East Coast Highway intersection. Mr. Walter Zigler, 327 Poppy Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, on behalf of seven families on Poppy Avenue. Mr. Zigler expressed the neighbors' concerns regarding the Five Crowns Restaurant employees parking on Poppy Avenue and possibly the proposed restaurants' employees, wherein he asked for a condition requiring on -site parking. Chairman Winburn informed Mr. Zigler that Condition No. 5 so states. In response to a question posed by Mr. Zigler, Mr. Hewicker replied that there will be no entertainment at the proposed restaurant. Mr. George reappeared before the Planning Commission stating that the tenants are prepared to leave after two years, and that he has no plans to leave prior to that time. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Hewicker replied that the proposed businesses will not need individual Coastal Commission permission, but only the proposed uses in the building. =10- MINUTES INDEX MINUTES =11- xx June 6, 1985 Mr. Webb replied that the parcel map went through the C o f x - a 9 v m returned with corrections now, that the recording could Z a _ m City of Newport Beach The publc hearing closed at this time. =11- Mr. Webb replied that the parcel map went through the first County check which is the longest part of the checking process, and that if the 1982 map were returned with corrections now, that the recording could take two to three weeks. The publc hearing closed at this time. Commissioner Eichenhofer opined that as a family -style restaurant, one parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public area" could be appropriate, which would leave 45 parking spaces for the restaurant and the remaining 19 spaces for the retail and office operations, and suggested that a condition could be added that the retail and office leases could state the businesses would close by 6:00 p.m. and, therefore, there would be no parking problem in the evening. Motion Commissioner Person made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 1965 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Person stated • that the parking as suggested by staff is appropriate, that the parcel map problem can be solved, and recommended Condition No. 9 as suggested by staff. He commented that the neighborhood concerns have been properly addressed in the conditions of the staff report. Commissioner Person also made a motion to deny Variance No. 1123, subject to the findings in Exhibit "A". Mr. Hewicker confirmed with Commissioner Person, that Condition No. 4 would include one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area" for the restaurant, one parking space for each 250 square feet of floor area for the retail and office uses, and no additional. building permits would be permitted other than those associated with the restaurant and optician until the parcel map is recorded. Chairman Winburn stated that she will support the motion, and that the responsibility of permitting additional leases lies with Mr. Mayo and not the City. Chairman Winburn cited that the optician and restaurant will be permitted on -site if the motion is approved. • Commissioner Turner suggested that the use permit come back for review in one year to the Modifications Committee. Commissioner Person accepted the recommendation and that the recommendation be added as Condition No. 19. =11- Ayes • COM x x June 6, 1985 C o H _ M r y m M c S 0 a p 9 0 a r 0 m City of Newport Beach x MINUTES Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No, 1965 (Amended) and to deny Variance No. 1123. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 1965 (Amended) FINDINGS: 1. That as conditioned, the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed restaurant and retail /office uses will not have any "significant .environmental impact, providing that parking demands are met. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems if adequate parking is provided on site. 4. That the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunc- tion with valet parking service will permit an adequate number of parking spaces to be provided on the site in conjunction with the proposed uses. 5. The proposed use of tandem parking spaces and a valet parking service will not, under the circum- stances of this 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 detri- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Further, the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code., 6. That the approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. 1965 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 improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. -12- • June 6, 1985 M CONDITIONS! r I � A 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That the parking lot shall be restriped so as to conform to the City's criteria for commercial parking spaces. The parking plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. The restriping shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits autho- rizing alterations to be made to the.facility. 3. That the emergency fire exit on Hazel Drive shall be kept closed and locked at all times. Further, a minimum aisle width of twenty feet must be maintained free and clear of vehicles or any other obstructions at all times for emergency access or egress. 4. That one parking space shall be provided for each 40 sq. ft. of "net public area" in the restaurant; one parking space shall be provided for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area devoted to retail uses; and one parking space shall be provided for each 250 sq. ft. of net floor area devoted to office uses. 5. That all employees of the businesses conducted on the site shall park their vehicles on the site. 6. That valet parking service shall be provided when any of the businesses on the site are open for business. 7. That the parking attendants shall only park vehicles on the site. No vehicles shall be parked on the surrounding public streets. B. That building permits shall be issued for all construction on the subject property. 9. That a parcel map shall be recorded so as to eliminate interior property lines and create a single parcel of land. Said map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits authorizing alterations to the existing building or any construction on the site, other than those permits -13- MINUTES c o ~L S 9 = - a V r 9 m a c m o m z 0 a z r a z O 0 ai m m> M T Z 9 Z 2 Z" m • June 6, 1985 M CONDITIONS! r I � A 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That the parking lot shall be restriped so as to conform to the City's criteria for commercial parking spaces. The parking plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. The restriping shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits autho- rizing alterations to be made to the.facility. 3. That the emergency fire exit on Hazel Drive shall be kept closed and locked at all times. Further, a minimum aisle width of twenty feet must be maintained free and clear of vehicles or any other obstructions at all times for emergency access or egress. 4. That one parking space shall be provided for each 40 sq. ft. of "net public area" in the restaurant; one parking space shall be provided for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area devoted to retail uses; and one parking space shall be provided for each 250 sq. ft. of net floor area devoted to office uses. 5. That all employees of the businesses conducted on the site shall park their vehicles on the site. 6. That valet parking service shall be provided when any of the businesses on the site are open for business. 7. That the parking attendants shall only park vehicles on the site. No vehicles shall be parked on the surrounding public streets. B. That building permits shall be issued for all construction on the subject property. 9. That a parcel map shall be recorded so as to eliminate interior property lines and create a single parcel of land. Said map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits authorizing alterations to the existing building or any construction on the site, other than those permits -13- MINUTES MINUTES x x June 6, 1985 c o associated with the restaurant use and the optician's office. Occupancy of any portion of r v the building other than the restaurant and z c m s m z opt'ician's facility shall also be prohibited until C = zz H O O * O M A City of Newport Beach 10. That any office uses on the site shall provide a'r m associated with the restaurant use and the optician's office. Occupancy of any portion of the building other than the restaurant and opt'ician's facility shall also be prohibited until the parcel map has been recorded. 10. That any office uses on the site shall provide personal or professional services directly to the public in accordance with the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan.. 11. That the hours of operation of the restaurant shall be limited to the hours between 11:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. daily. 12. That there shall be no pick -ups or deliveries prior to 7:00 a.m. daily. 13. That no live entertainment or dancing shall be provided in conjunction with the restaurant unless • an amendment to this use permit is approved. 14. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from East Coast Highway and adjoining properties. 15. That any parking lot lighting shall be designed so as to eliminate spillage of light or glare onto surrounding properties or East Coast Highway. 16. That the slope to the rear of the property shall be maintained and planted to prevent erosion and slope failure; and kept free of trash, litter, and other debris. 17. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 18. 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. • 19. That the use permit shall be reviewed by the Modifications Committee in one year. -14- COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1985 M Variance No. 1123 FINDINGS: .Beach 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and uses proposed in this application, which circum- stances and conditions do not generally apply to land, buildings, and /or uses in the same district. 2. That approval of a variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as it is possible to provide the required number of parking spaces through the use of tandem parking spaces and valet parking service. Further, the provision of the required number of parking spaces through the use of tandem spaces and valet parking service is preferable to the provision of an insufficient number of independently accessible parking spaces. 3. That approval of a variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces could cause customers and/or employees of the businesses conducted on the site to park on adjacent residental streets, which, under the circumstances of this particular case, would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 4. That the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed parking .ratio reflects the anti- cipated demand for parking on the site. A. Use Permit No. 3151 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a two unit resi- dential condominium development and related garages on property located in the R -2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the second floor to encroach 1 foot into the required 20 foot front yard setback. First floor fireplaces are also proposed to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. -15- MINUTES INDEX F x c O O r v z c m Z m z z a z r S C z C w v a 0 o 0 M m o m a+ m z 9 z a z m June 6, 1985 M Variance No. 1123 FINDINGS: .Beach 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and uses proposed in this application, which circum- stances and conditions do not generally apply to land, buildings, and /or uses in the same district. 2. That approval of a variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as it is possible to provide the required number of parking spaces through the use of tandem parking spaces and valet parking service. Further, the provision of the required number of parking spaces through the use of tandem spaces and valet parking service is preferable to the provision of an insufficient number of independently accessible parking spaces. 3. That approval of a variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces could cause customers and/or employees of the businesses conducted on the site to park on adjacent residental streets, which, under the circumstances of this particular case, would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 4. That the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed parking .ratio reflects the anti- cipated demand for parking on the site. A. Use Permit No. 3151 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a two unit resi- dential condominium development and related garages on property located in the R -2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the second floor to encroach 1 foot into the required 20 foot front yard setback. First floor fireplaces are also proposed to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. -15- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1985 �x �o E y v 9 j m zc m > ,q z a s a z r a z a = A = m City of Newport Beach a ROLL CALL AND B. Resubdivision No. 809 (Public Hearing) A portion of Lot 3, Block 7, Tract No. 27, located at 3233 Clay Street, on the westerly side of Clay Street, between Bolsa Avenue and Westminster Avenue, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Robert L. Brooks, Costa Mesa OWNER: Sydney L. Balalis, Newport.Beach ENGINEER: Ron Miedema, Costa Mesa The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Robert L. Brooks, 1000 Nancy Lane, Costa Mesa, • appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Brooks stated that the requested 1 foot encroachment in the required 20 foot front yard setback would enlarge the upstairs bathrooms. Chairman Winburn concurred that esthetically the one foot encroachment would enhance the property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Brooks replied that the subject property is 50 feet wide, with 4 foot sideyard setbacks adjacent to both sides of the driveway, and so the driveway is 42 feet wide. A 2 foot wide landscape planter area is also proposed in the driveway between the two units. Mr. Brooks said that the 4 foot sideyards will also be landscaped. In reference to Resubdivision No. 809, Condition No. 5, Mr. Webb said that Council Policy L -2 requires that a single family residential unit with a double garage can have a 20 foot wide drive approach, a three car garage 25 feet, but in no situation shall the driveway exceed 50% frontage of the lot, unless approved by the City Council. If the width of the driveway exceeds 50% frontage of the lot, then the applicant will have to go • to the Council to obtain a waiver of Council Policy L -2. Mr. Webb stated that the intent of the policy is so that there is some on- street parking for guest parking. -16- MINUTES INDEX Motion Ayes Noes C • COM x Commissioner Person made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 3151 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of the deletion of Finding No. 6 and Condition No. 3. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3151 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project will .comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of ap- proval, except for minor chimney encroachments in the required 10 foot rear yard setback. 3. The project size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium develop- ment. 6. Deleted. 7. That the proposed chimneys that encroach 2± feet into the required rear yard setback are similar in nature to normal encroachments which are permitted in required front and side yard setbacks. 8. That the establishment, maintenance of operation of the use of the property or 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 be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification to allow two chimneys to encroach 2t feet into the. required 10 foot rear yard setback is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. -17- MINUTES INDEX P x TJ June 6, 1985 c o x - a y m Z c m a m Z C 2 m N O r ' o o City of Newport Beach z x Commissioner Person made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 3151 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of the deletion of Finding No. 6 and Condition No. 3. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3151 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project will .comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of ap- proval, except for minor chimney encroachments in the required 10 foot rear yard setback. 3. The project size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium develop- ment. 6. Deleted. 7. That the proposed chimneys that encroach 2± feet into the required rear yard setback are similar in nature to normal encroachments which are permitted in required front and side yard setbacks. 8. That the establishment, maintenance of operation of the use of the property or 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 be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification to allow two chimneys to encroach 2t feet into the. required 10 foot rear yard setback is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. -17- MINUTES INDEX • Motion Ayes • 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3151 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 development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. Deleted. 4. That the proposed chimneys shall be permitted to encroach 2± feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. 5. That the proposed garages shall be designed so as to provide a minimum clear width of 17 feet; 6 inches and a minimum clear depth of 19 feet. 6. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 809 shall be fulfilled. 7. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. X Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 809, X x x x x subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Resubdivision No. 809 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. -18- MINUTES INDEX June 6, 1985 c o n i a a m y 9 r v c z z 9 W z, y r z 0 T 0 m City of Newport Beach 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3151 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 development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. Deleted. 4. That the proposed chimneys shall be permitted to encroach 2± feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. 5. That the proposed garages shall be designed so as to provide a minimum clear width of 17 feet; 6 inches and a minimum clear depth of 19 feet. 6. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 809 shall be fulfilled. 7. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. X Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 809, X x x x x subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Resubdivision No. 809 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. -18- MINUTES INDEX MINUTES 'x x T June 6, 1985 r 9 z c m m z z M a a Z T m City of Newport Beach C Z N O x 0 0 9 CALL 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or 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 subdivi- sion. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded; that the portion of Lot 3, Block 7, Tract No. 27, not to be redeve- loped be shown on the parcel map as "not a part ". 2. That all improvements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfac- tory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public • improvements. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That curb, gutter, paveout and full -width sidewalk be constructed along the Clay Street frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department, and that the proposed driveway width conform to the Council Policy L -2 unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 5. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 6. That a drainage plan be prepared to show how the site is proposed to drain and that the Grading Engineer and Public Works Department approve the plan prior to issuance of any grading permits or recordation of the parcel map. 7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. That sewer service be provided in accordance with Costa Mesa Sanitary District standards. -19- • • June 6, 1985 M A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: Planning Director Hewicker informed the Commission that the draft Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan will be submitted to the Planning Department on Friday, June 7, 1985. In addition, the next Citizens' Ad Hoc Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan Committee meeting will be held in the third week of June, 1985. Mr. Hewicker discussed with the Commission the one day conference in Anaheim on June 20, 1985, entitled "The Role of the Planning Commission ". r A D J O U R N M E N T : 8:52 P.M. JOHN KURLANDER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -20- MINUTES INDEX x c o � F z v = _ y ," = c C M m > m x W D p z r G1 2 C z m p; 0 0 a m p m a n z S z a z m • • June 6, 1985 M A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: Planning Director Hewicker informed the Commission that the draft Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan will be submitted to the Planning Department on Friday, June 7, 1985. In addition, the next Citizens' Ad Hoc Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan Committee meeting will be held in the third week of June, 1985. Mr. Hewicker discussed with the Commission the one day conference in Anaheim on June 20, 1985, entitled "The Role of the Planning Commission ". r A D J O U R N M E N T : 8:52 P.M. JOHN KURLANDER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -20- MINUTES INDEX