Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/1990COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES A W PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: July 5, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. s : s EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney s : • William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer John Wolter, Principal Civil Engineer Sandra L. Genis, Senior Planner Joanne MacQuarrie, Secretary Election of Officers: Election of Officers Motion * Commissioner Di Sano made a motion to nominate All Ayes Commissioner Debay as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion * Commissioner Edwards made a motion to nominate All Ayes Commissioner Di Sano as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Motion voted on. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * Commissioner Di Sano made a motion to nominate All Ayes Commissioner Edwards as Secretary of the Planning Commission. Motion voted on. MOTION CARRIED. Minutes of June 21. 1990: Minutes of 6 -21 -90 James D. Hewicker, Planning Director stated that staff wished to make a change and expand on a statement on page 13, made by n Commissioner Glover, regarding Variance No. 1165. Copies of °es the change were distributed to the Commissioners. Motion was made and voted on to approve the June 21, 1990 Planning Commission Minutes as corrected. MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONERS W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. : : x Posting of the A e nda: Posting of Agenda James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 29, 1990, in front of City Hall. x x : Request for Continuances: Request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant, Continuance Newport Dynasty, Inc., has requested that Item No. 4, Use Permit No. 3289 (Amended), property at 2300 West Coast . Highway, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 1990, to allow additional time to revise the plans and to allow staff time to review those revised plans as well as address the parking requirement issues. Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicants, Martha and Robert Durkee, requested that Item. No. 5, Use Permit No. 3386, property at 500 West Balboa Boulevard, be continued to the meeting of July 19, 1990, to allow additional time to review the plans with staff. He continued that staff requested that Item No. 7, Amendment No. 708, a request to amend Title 20 of the Municipal Code so as to establish the Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) District be continued to the July 19, 1990 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff additional time for review and refinement of the proposed changes to the Zoning Code. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Items No. 4, No. 5, All Ayes and No. 7 to the July 19, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. x x x -2- COMMISSIONERS � o.o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Re division No. 933 (Public Hearing) Item No. 1 Request to resubdivide a single lot into a single parcel of land R.933 for two unit residential condominium purposes on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 11, Balboa Tract, located at 809 East Bay Avenue, on the southwesterly side of East Bay Avenue, between Main Street and "A' Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Dan D'Amore, Newport Beach OWNERS: Dan and Barbara D'Amore, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Triangle Surveying, Anaheim • The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dan D'Amore, property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A." There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. All Ayes 933 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A." MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the • City, all applicable general or specific plans and the -3- COMMISSIONERS �y A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. The parcel map shall be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. • 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to the completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That 5 feet of right -of -way be dedicated to the public along the alley frontage. 6. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permit. 7. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimi d by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance • with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan -4- COMMISSIONERS '� .o tiA p� Y cn�A p, O O,r� A W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 8. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 9. That the curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along the East Bay frontage and that a concrete approach be constructed along the alley frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 10. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 11. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. S12. That the driveway width and slope shall conform to City Standards. 13. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 14. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 15. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Variance No. 1165 (Continued Public Headao Item No. 2 Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on V1165 property located in the R -1 District which exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. continued t The proposal also includes a request to permit the new 8-9 -90 construction to exceed the height of top of curb on Ocean -5- • COMMISSIONERS July 5, 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Boulevard to the extent that the existing garage and fence currently extend above top of curb (varies between 4 feet 6 inches ± and 8 feet 6 inches ±). The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback. LOCATION: A portion of Block A, Corona del Mar, located at 3725 Ocean Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of Ocean Boulevard between Poinsettia Avenue and Poppy Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Dan Hangsleben, Costa Mesa OWNERS: Kay and Virginia Smallwood, Corona del Mar Planning Director Hewicker explained to the Planning Commission that since the June 21, 1990 public hearing, the applicant had made various design revisions in order to reduce the overall height of the project. These changes, however, still result in a garage being 5 to 6 1/2 feet over the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard, a dwelling 2 ft. 2 inches to 5 feet above, with skylights at 7 1/2 feet above the top of curb. He stated that it was staff's opinion that this solution does not meet the requirements of the City's General Plan in respect to preserving the views from Ocean Boulevard for new dwelling units on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Hewicker continued explaining that a driveway sope of 15% on the west side of the project would result in about a 10% slope on the east side, and if the garage were developed with a 10% to 15% driveway slope the resulting garage would be approximately 4 feet above top of curb. Mr. Hewicker stated that the Public Works Department prefers a maximum 15% slope, but would consider a 20% slope on a case by case basis. A 20% slope driveway on the west side would result in a 15% slope on the east side resulting in a garage about 3 feet above !Q INDEX COMMISSIONERS s� Jul y 5, 1990 INUTES sd o y a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 1 11 Jill INDEX top of curb which matches, generally, a residence built two doors west from the subject project. Mr. Hewicker stated that the Planning Commission had been provided with three exhibits: Exhibit "A," findings and conditions of approval for the project as revised; Exhibit "B" reflecting a 20% driveway with the garage 3 feet above top of curb; and Exhibit "C," findings for denial. He indicated that on a case by case basis staff believes that a 20% slope might be acceptable on Ocean Boulevard and that there was ample latitude built into the City's regulations to allow at least a two story dwelling to be built on the site which would still allow for the creation of a public view across the top of the property. In response to a question by Commissioner Edwards as to whether or not the Public Works Department had considered a 20% slope, Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that due to the existing down slope of the street, there would be a 20% slope on one side of the property and 15% on the other, which would be acceptable although a maximum sope of 15% was preferred. Commissioner Glover commented that the previous public hearing had been continued to allow the applicant additional time to work with staff in the redesign of the project, and she asked Mr. Hewicker if there had been any contact between the applicant and /or his representative, to which Mr. Hewicker replied not to his knowledge. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Neil Cowan, Architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and in reference to Commissioner Glover's aforementioned remark, Mr. Cowan said that the day he had tried to contact the project planner, he was not in. Mr. Cowan continued that the revised project design reflecting a total height reduction of 2 feet is acceptable to the owner, whereas a two -story house with a 20% driveway slope is not acceptable. He stated that a two -story design would not provide adequate square footage, and would necessitate a stairway leading into the entry to encroach onto public land, and, aesthetically, worsen the relationship of the project with the • neighboring dwellings. -7- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \o\'v'.V'vl"V: \d,\ July 5, 1990 & \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROI. CALL III fill I I INDEX In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Cowan stated that Exhibit "A" would be acceptable. In answer to a question from Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Cowan stated that although the dwelling could be constructed to the required building height standards, it would result not only in the loss of square footage, but produce an unattractive project. Jack Barry, 3712 Ocean Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced his objection to the proposed revised project, referring to a recently built project at 3713 Ocean Boulevard, which Mr. Barry stated had to conform with City requirements. Mr. Hewicker clarified that the proposed project as described in Exhibit "B" contains similar findings and conditions as that received by the project located at 3713 Ocean Boulevard, which was approved with a garage that exceeded the top of curb by 3 feet. There being no others desiring to appear and be beard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pers6n commented that he felt that during the previous public hearing on June 21, 1990, the Commission had been specific in what they expected to see in a redraw of the project, and that pursuant to Exhibit 'B," he could not approve the project without seeing a drawing especially in view of the sensitivity of such a street as Ocean Boulevard. Commissioner Motion Pers6n made a motion to deny Variance No. 1165, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "C." Substitute * Commissioner Pomeroy made a substitute motion to approve Motion Variance No. 1165, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'B," and with the provision that the redraw be brought back to the Planning Commission for review, whereby discussion ensued between the Commission regarding the effects of the two motions as opposed to continuing the item, if the applicant agreed to a continuance. 0 Chairman Debay reopened the public hearing. Mr. Cowan indicated that the applicant would agree to a continuance and would work with staff in the redesign of the project. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990 MI N UT ES ROLL Cali I I I J i l l I I INDEX Substitute Motion Withdrawn Substitute Motion Commissioner Pomeroy withdrew his previous substitute motion and made a substitute motion to continue Variance No. 1165 to the August 9, 1990 Planning Commission meeting with the understanding that the applicant is to redesign the project in accordance with the height limits specified in Exhibit 'B" so as to preserve public views. In responding to Commissioner Glover's comment regarding a reluctance to approve a continuance in light of the previous continuance and the applicant's failure to work with staff in the redesign of the project, Mr. Cowan stated that previously he had only one day before resubmittal, and on that particular day the planner he had been working with was not available; and continuing the public hearing until August 9, would allow two weeks in which to work with staff in the redesign. Ayes * * * * * * Substitute motion was voted on to continue Variance No. 1165 Ni * to the August 9, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 1758 ( ended )(Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of a private club with on -sale alcoholic beverages, live entertainment, dancing and off -site parking with a full-time valet parking service. The proposed amendment includes a request to expand the hours of operation of the club so as to allow a 6:00 p.m. opening whereas the existing hours of operation are limited from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 am. daily. The proposal also includes a request to formally amend a previously approved off -site parking agreement so as to allow the use of 9 parking spaces in the Lido Building parking lot during the expanded hours of operation. The proposal also includes a request to approve a second off -site parking arrangement on an informal basis involving the parking lot at the southeasterly corner of 32nd Street and Villa Way so as to provide a portion of the required off - street parking during the expanded hours of operation. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \oX:V. (e�, ov \ °n\ July 5, 1990 \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RMPFCALL III Jill I INDEX LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 60.43 (Resubdivision No. 433)(private club site) located at 3388 Via Lido, on the northeasterly side of Via Lido between Via Oporto and Via Malaga, adjacent to Lido Marina Village; Lot 4, Tract No. 907 (Off - site Parking Site No. 1), located at 3355 Via Lido in the Lido Building parking lot; and Lots 22 -30, Block 530, Lancaster's Addition (Off -site Parking Site No. 2), located at 500- 516 32nd Street, on the southeasterly comer of Villa Way and 32nd Street, in Central Newport. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Nina's Newport Beach, Newport Beach OWNER: Traweek Investment Fund #12, Ltd., Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Joe Blanchfield, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated his agreement with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A." There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed, but was reopened when Commissioner Edwards indicated he wished to address a question to the applicant. The applicant, Mr. Blanchfield, reappeared before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Edwards referred to the off -site parking agreement between Mr. Blanchfield and the landlord, Lido Marina Village, which is impacted by the on -going legal actions mentioned in the staff report, and inquired as. to when the action might be resolved. Mr. Blanchfield explained that the many changes of ownership of Lido Marina Village had complicated and prolonged the settlement of the legal action. Mr. Blanchfield confirmed that 9 parking spaces were permitted -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �o V,\mq \o�\ July 5, 1990 IS \ \ \ \ \ \\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R CALL INDEX on the Lido Building site, and 36 spaces located at the southeasterly comer of Villa Way and 32nd Street were included in his lease and were included in the legal action. Ile public hearing was closed. In responding to Commissioner Merrill's comments questioning the distance from the offsite parking site on Villa Way to the club site, Current Planning Manager William Laycock stated that the application includes full-time valet parking service, and said offsite lot was used by the former club on the subject property. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1758 Ayes * * * * * * (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A." No * MOTION CARRIED. Findings: • 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have a significant environmental impact. 3. The off -site parking areas are located so as to be useful to the private club. 4. Parking on off -site lots will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 5. That the applicant has entered into appropriate leases for the off -site parking spaces, which are of sufficient duration for the proposed project. 6. That the property containing the private club and the proposed off -site parking area located at the southeasterly comer of 32nd Street and Villa Way are in the same ownership. • 11111111 7. That the hours of operation of the private club and the other commercial uses using the on -site and off -site -11- COMMISSIONERS '� .O tiS O_ d o�p � Gp� �, �d A W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990 I N UT ES ROLL CALL INDEX parking areas are such as to allow joint use of the parking areas. 8. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed project. 9. That public improvements may be required of the applicant per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Cade. 10. That the design of the development 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 development. 11. The approval of Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare • of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved parking lot plans and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That all previously applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1758 and 1758 (Amended) shall be fulfilled. 3. That the hours of operation of the private club shall be limited between 6:30 pm. and 2:00 a.m. nightly. 4. That the applicant shall provide a minimum of 9 off -site parking spaces, from 6:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. nightly, at the lido Office Building located at 3355 Via Lido and a minimum of 36 off -site parking spaces, from 6:30 p.m. to 2:00 am. at property on the southeasterly comer of 32nd • Street and Villa Way located at 500 -516 32nd Street. -12- COMMISSIONERS CALL July 5, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. An amended off -site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council for the earlier 6:30 p.m. use of the 9 existing off -site parking spaces at the Lido Office Building located at 3355 Via Lido. 6. That the earlier 6:30 p.m. opening of the private club shall be discontinued if the applicant loses the right to use any of the on -site or off -site parking spaces approved in conjunction with this application unless suitable replacement parking is provided at a location approved by the Planning Commission. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 8. That all improvements be constructed as required by • Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 9. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the opening of the private club at 6:30 p.m. 10. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 11. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3289 (Amended)(Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which • permitted the establishment of a 53 unit motel facility and related restaurant and cocktail lounge on property located in the -13- tNQEX to COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �A �o V� %O-v) vo.x July 5, 1990 \ \ \ \ \ \\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . ROL CALL INDEX "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposed amendment involves a request to change the operational characteristics of the existing restaurant so as to allow the establishment of live entertainment within the restaurant and motel lobby, to include a piano bar and strolling string instruments. LOCATION: A portion of Lot A, Tract No. 919, located at 2300 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, across from Cano's Restaurant, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Newport Dynasty, Inc., Newport Beach • 11111111 OWNERS: Chih Mao and Yean M. Kuo, San Clemente James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the July 19, 1990 Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time to revise the plans and to allow staff time to review the revised plans. Motion * 1111111 Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the Jul All Ayes 19, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED : : s • Use Permit No. 3386 (Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to permit the construction of a combined commercial /residential development on property located in the un 3386 C -1 District. Cont. to 7 -19 -90 -14- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLZ CALL 111 1111 I INDEX Wes • LOCATION: Lot 22, Block 3, East Newport Tract, located at 500 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly comer of Island Avenue and West Balboa Boulevard, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANTS: Martha and Robert Durkee, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicants have requested that this item be continued to the July 19, 1990 Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time to review the plans with staff. Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the July 19, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Request to initiate Amendment No. 23 to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan establishing a policy regarding private oceanfront encroachments onto public property. LOCATION: The Ocean Front right -of -way and the City- owned beach adjacent to residentially -zoned properties, located between the Santa Ana River and the West Jetty. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach In addressing the Planning Commission, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the proposed policy governing private oceanfront encroachments onto public property was the result of over one year's work by members of the Ocean Front Citizens Advisory Committee which was appointed by the City Council and chaired by Mr. Jerry Cobb. Earlier this year, the City Council received the Committee's report, which is comprised -15- Item No:6 LCP No.23 Cont. to COMMISSIONERS A �0� �\� \CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX of two booklets, the final report and public comments. Copies of the report were forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for their input and to the Planning Commission for public bearing. A letter was received from the Coastal Commission staff with comments on the report, July 3, 1990. Copies of the letter were distributed to the Commission and copies were placed on the agenda table in the lobby for public review. An article regarding the letter also appeared in the July 5, 1990 Daily Pilot newspaper. In summarizing the comments contained in the Coastal Commission's letter, W. Hewicker stated that the Coastal Commission is not supportive of any seaward encroachment onto beach areas regardless of who holds a legal interest in die. property. What the Coastal Commission considers is how such encroachments would or would not be consistent with the applicable policies of the Coastal Act. Policies that the Commission will be considering are those which relate to maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the beaches of California. If the proposal of the City to deal with the encroachment problem does not maintain or enhance public access, then approval is not likely. Coastal Commission support would be one that would allow modest seaward encroachment while at the same time enhancing public access. As an example, the Coastal Commission sites a ground -level patio type of development 5 feet seaward of the homeowner's property line, if a public sidewalk were built to facilitate lateral public access along the beach and the alignment of the sidewalk precluded further seaward development. Continuing, W. Hewicker said that the letter states that the Coastal Commission is likely to be supportive of encroachment permits with annual renewal provisions and supportive of using the fees generated from the permits for enhancing public access to and along the beach. The letter states that the Coastal Commission would possibly be supportive of the proposed 5 year abatement program for non- conforming encroachment, unless the abatement period would preclude early completion of the suggested sidewalk. The amount of effort the Coastal Commission focuses upon remedying violations of the Coastal Act will likely depend on the timely submittal of an L.CP amendment which deals with the problem in a manner consistent with public access policies of the Coastal • Act. -16- COMMISSIONERS I\T , O� 10 � ON CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker emphasized that the City had requested input from the Coastal Commission at the time the encroachment report was submitted to the City Council; this letter from the staff of the Coastal Commission was in response to that request. Commissioner Glover asked for clarification of a statement in the letter regarding "...a minimum ten foot wide 'privacy buffer,' half on the public easement and half on private property." Don Webb, City Engineer, said his interpretation would be that the Coastal Commission staff was assuming that most of the lots involved have a 5 foot front yard setback and would utilize said 5 feet setback and 5 feet in the public right -of -way to create the buffer. In reply to Commissioner Edwards' question, Mr. Hewicker confirmed that any action that the Planning Commission and the City Council might take in regards to adopting an encroachment • policy would be subject to the review and approval of the Coastal Commission. John Wolter, Principal Civil Engineer, Public Works Department, a staff member of the Ocean Front Encroachment Committee, addressed the Planning Commission, and with the aide of two map exhibits, described the varying characteristics of the easements and rights -of -way within the areas studied by the Committee. Mr. Jerry Cobb, 6304 W. Ocean Front, Chairman, Ocean Front Encroachment Committee, appeared before the Planning Commission to present a summary of the Committee's report. Mr. Cobb explained that copies of a 10 chart- summary briefing had been distributed to the Commission and made available to the audience prior to the public hearing. Utilizing an overhead projector, these charts were displayed during Mr. Cobb's presentation. He briefly explained the work of the 9- member committee over a one -year period which included two public hearings, and the areas the Committee was chartered to investigate. He traced the evolution of oceanfront encroachments from low barriers constructed 30 to 40 years ago, primarily to protect against blowing sand and water to the approximately 295 encroahhments identified as existing today. Many of the • encroached areas are developed with rather extensive patio or -17- COMMISSIONERS AM 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990 MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX landscape improvements and act as a buffer zone between the property owner and the beach -going public. Mr. Cobb stated that roughly 85% of the oceanfront properties, extending from the Santa Ana River to Peninsula Point, have encroachments. For comparison purposes, the area was divided into four parts: A, B, C, and D. Referring to a summary chart listing the various depths of the encroachments, from 1 foot to 25 feet and above, and the number of encroachments within each of the four areas, Mr. Cobb pointed out that the Committee's recommendation that encroachments be permitted to remain up to a maximum of 15 feet, would require 61 property owners to rework their encroached areas. A 10 foot permitted encroachment would require 118, and 5 feet would require 254 properties to be reworked. Considering the varying widths of the beach in these areas, such permitted encroachments would be equivalent to 3% to 5% of the total beach area. Mr. Cobb summarized the Committee's recommended policy which would permit revocable permits for encroachments not to exceed 15 feet beyond the property line. The specifications for the limited improvements allowed would be specified by the Public Works Department. Property owners must certify compliance annually and indemnify the City from liability. All property owners must comply within 5 years or upon sale of the property. Revenue from the permit fees would be used for oceanfront and street -end improvements. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. At the request of Chairman Debay, John Wolter, Engineer, explained to the Planning Commission events that precipitated the City Council authorizing the formation of the Ocean Front Encroachment Citizens Committee in April, 1989. He stated that in 1985, at the behest of Coastal Commission staff, the City Council directed the Public Works Department to survey local oceanfront encroachments after certain articles regarding such encroachments appeared in local newspapers. Results of the survey were reported to the City Council, but no action was • taken. Approximately two years ago, after more articles regarding encroachments, especially in West Newport, appeared -18- COMMISSIONERS '4� vnd�N cd d,d �� cn� A& CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990 MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX in the media, the City was contacted by Coastal Commission staff and queried as to the City's actions since the 1985 survey. Coastal Commission staff indicated that if the City did not establish a policy regarding oceanfront encroachments that they would commence to do so. Responding to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the bicycle path on Seashore Drive was the result of an attempt to provide room for bicycle traffic and to improve circulation within the community. Inasmuch as there was not sufficient room to accommodate both two directional vehicle and bicycle traffic, Seashore Drive was made a one -way street for automobiles with a two way bicycle path. Although heavily utilized, he stated it was not considered a high accident area Commissioner Pers6n indicated he did not feel the Commission could hear testimony regarding the issues of a possible future • boardwalk and bike path in view of the fact that the legal noticing for Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 23 did not include verbiage on those issues. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney affirmed that if the Commission desired to recommend an encroachment policy which included a boardwalk or bike path, the public hearing should be continued and renoticed. However, action by the Planning Commission on LCP No. 23, without changing the proposed text, did not preclude taking testimony on the other issues. Asked by Commissioner Di Sano to comment on a statement in Item 3 of the Coastal Commission letter which implied that the Commission might allow modest seaward encroachments in return for a public sidewalk to facilitate public access, Mr. Wolter said it was his opinion that the Commission would continue to press for what it considered acceptable. He felt that the City should also recommend a policy it felt acceptable and appropriate. Asked by Commissioner Di Sano if the beachfront property owners would accept a boardwalk or bike path in return for permitted encroachments, Mr. Cobb explained that as President of the West Newport Homeowners Association, he was involved in a City Council public hearing when it considered and rejected the idea of a boardwalk in February, 1989. Mr. Cobb -19- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990 MINUTES RO= Cali I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX • r� emphasized, however, that he felt that the City should persist in establishing a policy regarding the oceanfront encroachments, and if the boardwalk became a compromise issue with the Coastal Commission, that there were many development options that could be pursued, i.e. vertical access, etc. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Wolter stated that many of the encroachments were in place before the Coastal Act of 1976. Since that date, if a property owner with an encroachment has needed a coastal permit, it has been the policy of the Coastal Commission to require that the property first to be brought into conformance. Commissioner Merrill indicated his agreement with Commissioner Person's aforementioned concern that the L.CP Amendment No. 23 could not be separated from the boardwalk and bike path issues and that the public hearing should be continued and renoticed. Assistant City Attorney Flory clarified for the Commissioners that any testimony heard during this public hearing regarding a boardwalk or bike path would be admissable testimony if, in fact, the Commission decided to renotice and continue the public hearing. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Dr. Michael Barme, 6811 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated his opinion _ that the patio encroachments did not affect the pubhes access to the beach as there were street -end public accesses every five or six houses. Dr. Barme said he favored grandfathering any existing oceanfront encroachments, and stated his objection to any boardwalk or bike path in the right -of -way area, as it would mean loss of privacy for the adjacent property owners. Mrs. Virginia Allen, 5211 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and distributed photos to the Commission showing sand piled against her fence. Mrs. Allen stated she felt the City must bear some responsibility regarding the conditions at the beach and stated that at the time the City was building groins to hold the beach, many yards of "muck" were brought from the river bottom and spread onto the beach. This was eventually covered over with still more yards and yards of sand -20- COMMISSIONERS O� ,P �p`y Y. pip A& CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 5, 1990 ROl- CALL INDEX which raised the level of the beach considerably. Ms. Allen stated that without her 32 inch high fence, she would have two feet of sand inside her living room. Mrs. Allen also voiced her objection to the dangers she felt a bike path would create. Mr. Max Morgan, 3304 W. Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission and quoted from a 1986 City bike trail report which stated that "the oceanfront had been designated as a Class 1 regional bicycle trail on the Orange County Master Plan of Countywide bike ways. The oceanfront facility has been adopted as a bike trail in the City of Newport Beach portion of the Coastal Plan" At the request of Chairman Debay, John Wolter explained that the existing oceanfront sidewalk is on the City's Master Plan of Bike Trails; the Plan does not show an extension of the sidewalk. Mr. Morgan pointed out two renderings he had posted on the display board which depicted a section of oceanfront allowing a 10 foot encroachment area and a boardwalk in the right -of -way. Mr. Morgan stated what he determined was the dollar value of the land that was being encroached upon as being an important issue. Mr. Morgan expressed his concern that the staffing of the Citizens' Advisory Committee predominantly favored the oceanfront property owners; he felt a more diversified input was needed, and that the public hearing should be continued and renoticed to include a bike way in the proposal. Mr. Chase Sanderson, 7204 W. Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed his approval of the Advisory Committee's report. Because of the threat of storms, Mr. Sanderson stated that his house was raised 30 inches, and he requested that the Commission retain discretionary approval that would allow the height of any improvements to be measured from the finished floor or 6 inches above grade. Mr. Sanderson also requested that consideration be given to allowing seawalls greater than 36 inches if glass were employed as part of the construction materials. Mr. John Hedges, 2914 W. Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated his opinion that the Advisory Committee's report was seriously flawed, unfair, and contrary to • the public's interest. Mr. Hedges cited that many of the -21- COMMISSIONERS ,WCITY d OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 199 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX properties have far more extensive improvements than the report indicates. He disapproved of the recommendation of revocable permits rather than selling, leasing, or vacating the encroachment area, believing that once permitted the revocable provision would never be employed. Mr. Hedges stated that if the Commission recommended approval of some form of encroachment, a value should be established, and the property owner taxed accordingly. He suggested that the issue be put on "the ballot" allowing all of the citizenry to decide. He urged the Commission to develop a new and completely revised recommendation that would serve all of the beach -going public, and to include a bike path that would extend from the Wedge to the Santa Ana River. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards, City. Engineer Don Webb stated that the area that the encroachments extend onto is an easement and cannot be purchased. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it would be inappropriate to assign the same overall value to a percentage of the property which had restricted use and could not be used to increase the bulk or size of the residence. . Ms. Mary Friar, 4105 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated she felt a one year renewable lease would be a workable solution, but a long -term lease would be preferable. Ms. Friar voiced her concerns on establishing a bike path on the easement area and suggested that if there were to be a bike path at all, it should be farther out, seaward of the easement area. She stated her opposition to the issue becoming a ballot measure. Mr. Bill Schonlau, 4809 Seashore Drive, City Bicycle Trails Committee Chairman, appeared before the Planning Commission and addressed the issue of safety in regards to the City's bike trails. Citing recently released bicycle accident statistics within the City, Mr. Schonlau reported that there were 9 accidents reported on Seashore Drive in 1989, which represented less than 10% of the City total of 116. As a member of the Safety on Seashore Committee which had studied alternatives to the Seashore Drive trail, he stated that it was the Committee's conclusion that the present trail location was the most desirable, • in terms of safety and accessibility, than a trail on the -22- COMMISSIONERS .o dd YP d� �� �nA iA d o 1 �' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 11 Jill I INDEX beachfront. Because the public beach is used by far more than just local citizenry, Mr. Schonlau stated that if the issue were to be voted, it should be by all of Southern California. Mr. A. L. Nieto, 4028 Newport Island, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated he felt that the value of the property must be considered in determining a fee schedule, and he supported a bike path facility extending from the Santa Ana River to the end of the peninsula. Mrs. Yvonne Cobb, 6304 W. Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission, and voiced her support of the Advisory Committee's Report. She stated her objection, however, to having issues involving West Newport residents decided by citizens of other communities. She said she believed that in the interest of safety bicyclists, pedestrians, and automobiles should be separated; however, she felt any extension of the existing boardwalk would compound the existing danger encouraging its • use by fast cyclists. Ms. Lenore Rodenas, 113 15th Street #5, appeared before the Planning Commission, and as a frequent cyclist, she felt that sufficient options already exist to accommodate the bicycling public, and an extension of the boardwalk would turn it into a modified velodrome. Mr. Batnigi, 6800 W. Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated he would not oppose encroachment fees as long as the revenues derived from the fees were used to improve the beachfront. He felt a beachfront bike path would be detrimental both to the safety of beach goers and to the beauty of the beachfront. At this time, Chairman Debay asked for a show of hands from those in the audience who still wished to testify. A poll of the Commissioners concluded that the majority of the Commissioners believed that the public hearing should be continued, and in order to provide sufficient time to renotice, to continue the public hearing to August 9, 1990. T'he Commission indicated favoring an attempt to hear all those present who wished to • testify. i _23_ COMMISSIONERS � �s o O P A p�,�� cnd W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 5, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL III Jill I INDEX Mr. Kelly Sandore, 430 Redlands Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission and cited the dangerous biking conditions of Seashore Drive as his reason for favoring a hard surface beachfront bike path. He opposed the encroachments. Mr. Lee Gittleman, 4705 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and addressed the issue of beach access which he felt would be better served if a sidewalk were constructed across the sand seaward. Ms. Marsha Nordland, 5710 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and cited some of the nuisances that she and other beachfront residents endure, such as, public telephones that ring all hours, public rest rooms, transients, etc. She asked. the Commission's support of encroachments. Mr. Ken McKinnon, 1424 Lincoln Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated he favored a bike path • extending the length of the peninsula, and felt that a satisfactory compromise regarding its location could be reached. Mr. Iry Dawson, 314 La Jolla Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that although he felt the hearing was veering away from the primary issue of encroachments, he was in favor of extending the boardwalk and using any fee revenue for maintaining and enhancing it. Mrs. Cindy Gittleman, 4705 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and addressed her concerns to the traffic, loss of privacy, and noise that already exist for those residents adjacent to either the bike trail on Seashore Drive or the existing boardwalk and favored no extension of the latter. Mr. Darwin Pearson, 1249 1/2 W. Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated his objections to the Advisory Committee's report and recommended that the encroachments be removed and favored a bike trail extending from the wedge to the Santa Ana River. Mr. Sterling Wolfe, 6204 W. Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission. He referred to Item 3 in the Coastal • Commission letter and asked if it were the intent of the Coastal -24- COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 5, 1990 ROL CALL INDEX Commission to approve minimum encroachments in return for an extended boardwalk, would the opposite be true? If the encroachments were removed, would the issue of a boardwalk disappear? Chairman Debay asked John Wolter to follow up the query and report back to the Commission at the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1990. Mr. Wolfe said he would prefer to remove his 16 foot encroachment rather than have an extended boardwalk. In reference to Mr. Wolfe's aforementioned question, Commissioner Di Santo asked staff for an answer. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated he didn't feel there was a definitive answer. It was his opinion that protecting the coastal resources and improving public access were part of the Coastal Commission's responsibilities, but that the Coastal Commission has not normally instructed cities exactly how to obtain these goals. Ms. Beth Flynn, 6302 1/2 W. Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission, and speaking from her personal experiences as a biker on both the existing boardwalk and Seashore Drive, she believed the boardwalk was much more hazardous. Mr. Robert Moody, 5507 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to voice his opinion that it would be physically impossible to accommodate the growing number of bikers and pedestrians on a boardwalk of the same size that exists presently. Regarding encroachments, Mr. Moody raised the question as to whether it would not be to the benefit of the affected property owner to take his argument directly to the Coastal Commission, if any recommendation made by the Planning Commission and the City Council would ultimately be approved or disapproved by that agency. Mrs. Sandore, 246 Orange Street, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced her opposition to encroachments, but favored a boardwalk. Mrs. Ila Morgan, 3304 W. Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced her support of a boardwalk. • -25- COMMISSIONERS El • MINUTES July 5, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. Jack Schwartz, 6210 W. Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated that removal of all of the encroachments would not benefit the beach -going public who, when at the beach, occupy areas farther seaward. Referring to Item 3 of the Coastal Commission letter, Commissioner Merrill stated that the term used was "sidewalk," not boardwalk or bike path. Mr. Jerry Cobb, Advisory Committee Chairman, reappeared before the Planning Commission. He read a statement from Mr. John Konwiser, a member of the Advisory Committee and also a member of the Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission, which indicated he believed that severely limiting or eliminating the encroachments would be an emotional and economical burden to the property owners and that the land encroached onto was a small percentage as compared to the percentage of open beach. A motion was made to continue the public hearing to August 9, 1990, and to ask that staff renotice LCP No. 23 in conformance with previous comments made by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Pomeroy indicated he wished to make changes to text in the resolution, specifying in the eighth paragraph "...while preserving public views and enhancing public access to the ocean." He also requested that language be included in the resolution specifying that any fees collected from encroachments shall be used to improve or enhance public access to the beach. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the issues of boardwalk and bike trail should be separated from the issue of encroachments and that focus should be directed on addressing whether or not the Coastal Commission might approve the proposed recommendation. He stated that the encroachments recommended are less than 5% of the beach area and that it was a fact that there is a lot of open beach. He stated that most of the encroachments were in place before the Coastal Act of 1976, and felt that the property owners should not be frightened into believing that the Coastal Commission will not accept the proposed policy recommended by the City. 10 INDEX COMMISSIONERS An 'd � to O 0��7' Oyl7 cOq� Off' N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 5, 1990 ROL CALL INDEX Commissioner Glover stated her belief that the approach to arriving at a solution, beginning with the Citizens' Advisory Committee, was a good one, and that the public hearing process with the participation by the citizens most affected by the issue at hand, was a very important part of the process. The Commission was charged with representing all of the citizens of the City, and she was hopeful that the result of the public hearings would be a recommended policy that would prove satisfactory to both the citizens of the City and to the Coastal Commission. In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards as to whether the Advisory Committee had considered a Consumer Price Index (CPI) in conjunction with the proposed annual . encroachment fees of $200 for up to 15 feet, $100 up to 10 feet, and $50 up to 5 feet, Mr. Cobb said it had not. The fee structure had been based on information gathered including dock fees, oceanfront park fees, etc. • Commissioner Edwards also asked that the City Attorney report back to the Commission, with a written opinion, as to the authority the City would have under the proposed amendment to employ the revocable encroachment provision. Commissioner Pomeroy emphasized that any fee structure should include provision of CPI adjustment. All Ayes Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. s s s Amendment No. 708 (Continued Public Hearinel Item No.7 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal A708 Code so as to establish the Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) District. Cont. to 7 -19 -90 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James D. Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff requested • that this item be continued to the July 19, 1990 Planning -27- COMMISSIONERS Motion All Ayes July 5, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commission meeting to allow staff additional time for review and refinement of the proposed changes to the Zoning Code. Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the July 19, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 712 (Public Hearing) Request to amend Title 20 of the Municipal Code as it applies to nonconforming uses and structures. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Planning Director James Hewicker stated that this proposed amendment would allow people whose property is deficient structurally to withstand an earthquake, to be able to make the necessary remodelling and upgrading of the structures for • complying with State law without the requirement of first obtaining a use permit. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Lou Von Dyl, 310 Fernando Street, representing the Newport Bay Towers Homeowners Association appeared before the Planning Commission and referred to meetings he had participated in with staff and the City Attorney to discuss the Association's concerns. He stated that the condominium owners did not feel they should be included in this amendment and asked for exemption. • Mr. Hewicker explained that the Association objected to the suggested amendment which provides for replacement of units comparable in size and location. The Association wanted to be able, in the case of disaster, to rebuild their building exactly as it was before, which is contrary to what would be required of any other affected structure. As an example, Mr. Hewicker said it was possible that if all units had 10 foot ceilings, rebuilding exactly as existing could put the structure above the height limit, whereas a structure could be rebuilt to code and still provide for the same number of units of comparable size and location. K INDEX 'Approved COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 5, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Following Commissioner Glover's statement that she could not support an amendment if it meant a loss of living area square footage, further discussion ensued between the Commissioners. Ms. Althea Line, Newport Bay Towers resident, appeared before the Planning Commission to voice her objection to the proposed amendment. There being no one else to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion I 1 *111111 Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 712 deleting the word "comparable" in Section D, Exhibit "A," and adding the word "equal." Commissioner Edwards stated that he could not support such a motion, believing the change removed any discretionary options. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested substituting the word "equivalent" for the word "comparable" and the maker of the motion approved the request to amend the motion. Motion was All Ayes voted on. MOTION CARRIED. s s s E-VoTITH-11912VEMe.11 WPM Commissioner Glover discussed the inadequate landscaping being provided in conjunction with the new sound walls being constructed along West Coast Highway. Planning Director Hewicker informed the Commission that the City Council is in the process of reviewing the appearance of said walls. The Commission directed staff (All Ayes) to place the following additional items on the Study Session agenda of July 19, 1990, at 3:30 p.m.: 1. Request to establish guidelines for requiring drought resistant landscaping for projects in the City. 2. Discussion regarding the water shortage in the City and Southern California. -29- INDEX Additional COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 5, 1990 ROL CALL INDEX ADJOURNMENT: 12:07 a.m. Adjournment s e s THOMAS EDWARD;, SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION -30-