Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2906 W COAST HWY11-1111111111111111111111111111111111111 lill *NEW FILE* 2906 W Coast Hwy A- �- 'COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS No • �� Telephone: (714) 644-3200 Plan Check • a renia Garci Assistant Planner By:Christy Teague Assists Planner By:Marc Mvers��. Ass . istantPlanner BYJ-�I--� Innt� �iy"�v�iti Address: //✓'� Districting Map No. Land Use Element Page No. Corrections Required: `!�C3 Legal Description: Lot ig— Block Section Tract Resubdivision required to combine lots or portions of lots when construction or alterations are in excess of $5,000. Covenant required. Please have owner's signature notarized on the attached document and return to me. Lot Size Zone Proposed Use _� Required Setbacks Front Rear Right Side \ LLefftp Side Aa ((NN_ FAR WORKSHEE Lot area site area s .ft. sq.ft. Base Development Allocation (BDA): come sq. [0.5 x site area sq.ft., unless otherwise specified in Land Use Element] AR permitted, without variance: (A) Comm res pkq Square footage permitted: Comm res pkq sq.ft. [(A) x site area sq.ft.] Maximum FAR allowed with variance: (B) Comm res pkq Maximum square footage allowed: Comm res sq.ft. [(B) x site area sq.ft.] PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: (C) Base FAR use sq.ft. (D) Reduced FAR use sq.ft. (E) Maximum FAR use sq.ft. (F) TOTAL SQ.FT. [C+D+E] PROPOSED FAR: PROPOSED WEIGHTED DEVELOPMENT: sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. [ F % site area sq.ft. j FAR Use Category Weighting Factor (G) (H) i sq.ft. Base X 1.00 sca.ft. Reduced X 1.67 .ft. Maximum X 0.50 TOTAL WEIGHTED SQ.FT.(May not exceed BDA) Weighted Sq.Ft. ( G x H ) sq.ft. f sq.ft. sq.ft. Provide tissue overlay of calculations to verify provided square footage. Required Parking S . 10rj d parking (Indicate nu e f stalls provided) u tal on -Site Parking �fe~"�/ n :.J andard Compact C (/� O �§ Atp& i / n-lieu ParkingV�u !3 tsion building height as measured from natural grade to average and maximum l )46C/11 v Show natural grade line on all elevations6 Show all rooftop mechanical equipment and dimension from grade directly below. Indicate location of trash containers on site plan. _ Number -of Stories - Floor Plan'fully dimensioned showing all room uses. Plot Plan fully dimensioned showing location of all buildings, fences, etc. in relation to the property line. Fair Share Contribution go N" San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee SPECIAL APPROVAL REQUIRED THROUGH: Please indicate any discretionary approval numbers on the plans and incorporate the attached; excerpt of minutes and list of findings and conditions into the blueline drawings approval letter into the blueline drawings Modifications Committee: Indicate Approval No. on Bluelines Modification required for Planning commission/City Council tf rJa Use Prmit: No. variance: Resubdivision/Tract: No. Site Plan Review: No. Amendment: No. Other Public Easement/Encroachment Permit Subdivision Engineer Traffic Engineer Approval of Landscape Plans Building Department: Grading Engineer Parks Department: Approval of Landscape Plans Coastal Development Permits: Appr-oval—In_Concept (AIC) Not tif-10 Tans: site, floor, and o s al Development -- Effective Date: - Waiver/Exemption: Effective date NOTE: It is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their plans and obtain the necessary approvals from the departments checked above. If you have questions regarding your application, please contact me at (714) 644- 3200. FORNs\COMM-Z0N.00R Conditions of Approval Use Permit No. 3321 (Amended) 2906 West Coast Highway P.C. #524-91 Condition Department Action 1. Substantial Conformance Planning Plans approval 2. Circulation/striping Traffic Plans approval Planning Prior to issuance of bldg. permits Code Enforcement Field Check 3. Conditions/previous U.P. Planning Letter of compliance 4. 14 pkg. spaces Planning Plans approval 5. Installation Activities Planning Letter of Compliance 6. Handicapped Parking Planning Plans approval Code Enforcement Field Check Hold on final 7. Auto detailing Planning Letter of compliance 8. Coastal Commission Planning Submit 9. N/A 10. N/A 11. Service Bays Planning Plans approval Code Enforcement Field Check January 4, 1990MINUTES ,AMISSIONERS F^ 9 L. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OLL CALL Use Per Request permitte in the accessol amend t number additior. LOCA1 ZONE: APPLh OWNS In resF report conditi Plannii have 1 Hewicl recomi the Ci into ai stating so as subjec condit subjec permit Mr. F parkir propo In res Laycc have INDEX mi N 21 (Amended)(Public Hearine) item No.9 to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3321A A the establishment of a retail sales facility specializing and Approved — sales and installation of automotive electronics •ies. The proposed amendment involves a request to ;ertain conditions of the original use permit regarding the and location of off-street parking and to permit ial service bays on the property. 'ION: A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2906 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, Boulevard and between North Newport Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. SP-5 ANTS: Nancy and Robert Clark ,R: Robert Brandy, Pauma Valley tone to Commissioner Edwards' request for an updated with regard to the applicants' compliance with the on in the original Use Permit No. 3321, James Hewicker, 1g Director, explained that no changes in the conditions Mr. )een made since the staff report was written. cer advised that subsequent to the Planning Commission nending revocation of the original Use Permit No. 3321 to City Council entered ty Council on October 5, 1989, the the applicants dated November 15, 1989, 1 agreement with that the applicants must comply with specific conditions to allow the establishmen0to continue to operate at the t site. Mr. Hewicker commented 'that the terms and been fulfilled including the ion of the agreement have t application to file an amendment to the original use t. lewicker addressed staffs concern with regard to on -site tg for the customers and employees in conjunction with the sed expanded operation on -site. pone to question posed by Commissioner Glover, William ,ck, Current Planning Manager, stated that the applicants Mr. Hewicker requested three new installation bays. -30- .r t.l.y.h4 ,. ,oMMISSIONERS o � �o o • o� `1 ONpN � January 4, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX explained that the area occupied by the service bays was not calculated in the parking requirement inasmuch as the retail sales are located only in the showroom. Discussion ensued with regard to a customer -requesting only the installation of equipment. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy with regard to the chain located on the premises, Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that the chain across the driveway could be removed. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Ted Dean, 2678 Raven Circle, Corona, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Dean stated that the chain was installed to keep the public from driving to the rear of the facility. Chairman Pomeroy commented that when the chain is installed across the driveway it is necessary to back a vehicle directly out on to West Coast Highway. Mr. Dean commented that the custom business does not compete with large establishments that serve the general public. Mr. Dean stated that additional parking spaces could be provided if a 450 square foot service bay were eliminated. He explained that two service bays have been enclosed to comply with the conditions imposed by the City. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Dean replied that with very few exceptions the applicant does not install equipment that is not sold on the premises. Mrs. Nancy Clark, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill with regard to keeping the parking space located directly in front of the building open for customers, Mrs. Clark explained that occasionally an employee will park in said parking space. Mrs. Clark commented that the employees generally park at the rear of the building. Commissioner Di Sano addressed his concerns with regard to the size of the site, and if the site is capable of allowing the establishment to function in the manner the applicants wish to operate the business. Mrs. Clark replied that the applicants do not intend to expand the business further than the requested service bays. In response to a question posed by Commissioner -31- .)MMISSIONERS Slok\ cr_ . l ,r January 4, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Di Sano with regard to the parking layout, Mrs. Clark replied that a service bay could be eliminated and a parking space added. Discussion ensued regarding the procedure that is taken after an automobile is dropped off for equipment installation. Mrs. Clark explained that customer appointments are arranged in a manner that automobiles are not parked waiting for equipment installation, that one installer is employed per service bay, and the applicants provide a service wherein automobiles are picked up and delivered to the customer. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Mrs. Clark stated that the business employs seven employees, including the applicants. Mr. Hewicker stated that the proposed expansion consists of 13 parking spaces including the service bays or 8 parking spaces not including the service bays. Mr. Laycock referred to staffs recommended alternative parking plan that would provide 8 parking spaces for employees and 4 customer parking spaces, including i handicapped parking space, but not including the service bays. Mrs. Clark stated that two outside salesmen and customers park at the side of the building. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the parking spaces, Mr. Dean stated that he preferred staffs alternative parking plan inasmuch as said plan provides 12 parking spaces including i handicapped parking space. He said that said plan provides 7 parking spaces at the rear of the building and 5 parking spaces in the front of the building. Discussion ensued between Mr. Dean and the Planning Commission with regard to the number of existing service bays, parking spaces, and employees. -* In response to a request for clarification posed by Commissioner Glover, Mrs. Clark replied that the facility does not provide body work within the installation bays, and the business only installs equipment that the operation sells retail. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Dean replied that installation of equipment in large motor vehicles is accomplished at another site. Commissioner Edwards addressed Condition No. 4 in Exhibit "A" with regard to the number of parking spaces. Mr. Laycock -32- jMMISSIONERS January 4, 1990 �..� MINUTES CITY OF" NEWPORT BEACH r ROLL CALL INDEX explained that said condition relates to the alternate parking plan as proposed by staff: 12 parking spaces, including 2 tandem parking spaces at the rear of the site, 2 parking spaces (nos. 8 and 9) between the buildings, and the handicapped parking space would be installed in the driveway. Mr. Laycock explained that when West Coast Highway is widened, that Parking Space No. 12 indicated on the Alternative Parking Plan would be eliminated. Chairman Pomeroy stated that .the 12 parking spaces would be in addition to the 5 service bays. Mr. Laycock further commented that the applicants informed staff that 8 employees are proposed at' a future time. In response to a question'posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mrs. Clark explained that when staff originally requested the number of employees, she responded 8 employees inasmuch as she was anticipating an additional employee in the future. In response to a request for clarification posed by Commissioner Merrill, discussion ensued with regard to the Alternate Plan consisting of 5 service bays, 12 parking spaces, maximum consideration of 8 employees, and the elimination of one parking space when West Coast Highway is widened. Mr. Laycock explained that 4 parking spaces would be available for customers with the Alternate Parking Plan until one of said spaces were eliminated with the widening of West Coast Highway. Commissioner.Glover addressed her concern that the applicants have requested to expand the business by amending the use permit when, in fact, the applicants did not comply with the conditions of the original -use permit. In response to a question . posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Dean stated that the applicants. kould agree to eliminate one service bay so as to provide one additional parking space. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Hewicker with . regard to the installation of equipment in the outside areas, and the number of proposed service bays. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the applicants apparently did not understand the time frame to accomplish the conditions of approval in the original use permit, and she suggested that a time frame be considered in the conditions of approval if the Planning Commission approves this application. Mr. Laycock referred to Condition No. 8 in Exhibit 'W' with -33- � January 4, 1990 ,oMMISSIONERS MINUTES VIJ051450 mo Kt ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLLCALL I I Jill I INDEX regard to the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits and the implementation of the use permit. Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicants received approval of the original use permit from the Coastal Commission, and the driveway was recently installed onto West Coast Highway in accordance with the agreement with the City Council. Mr. Dean stated that the applicants have read and concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "W. Dr. Jan VanderSloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. VanderSloot addressed his concerns regarding the number of required parking spaces. He pointed out that the applicants have requested to amend the original use permit which would intensify the business use, and he requested that one service bay be eliminated so as to add two parking spaces. Dr. VanderSloot suggested that all of the employees be required to park in the adjacent Municipal Parking Lot which would leave all of the on -site parking spaces for customers. Commissioner Pers6n responded that the employees would park in the neighborhood instead of the Municipal Parking Lot. Mrs. Janine Gault, 406 San Bernadino Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Heights Community Association's recommendation that one of the service bays be eliminated so as to provide additional parking spaces. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Dj Sano stated that, it would be imprudent to permit the applicants •additional service bays than the original use permit so as to expand the business inasmuch as the site is too small for the 'existing activity on -site. Commissioner.Pers6n addressed the agreement between the City Council and the applicants, and he asked if it would be possible to refer the application to the City'Council without action. Mrs. Flory affirmatively replied. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the recommendation to refer this matter to the City Council without action. .)MMISSIONERS �wmu7 �,� January 4, 1990 MINUTES w.: CALL Motion Substitute Motion CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH In response to a request posed by Commissioner Glover regarding Exhibit "A", Mr. Laycock stated that the approval of Exhibit "A" would allow 5 service bays inasmuch as Condition No. 1 states -that the proposed project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved alternative site plan which includes tandem parking spaces at the rear of the building and 5 service bays proposed by the applicant. In response to Commissioner, Glover's• concern- with regard to the number of proposed service bays, Mr. Hewicker suggested that a condition could be added indicating that two service bays could be converted to parking spaces: Mr. Laycock commented that the business was allowed only two covered service bays originally, but additional . installation activities were illegally conducted outside. Commissioner Pers6n made a motion to forward Use Permit No. 3321 (Amended) to the City Council with no action. Chairman Pomeroy suggested that the Planning Commission make recommendations to the City Council. Discussion ensued between Chairman Pomeroy and Commissioner Pers6n regarding the intensity of development on the site. Chairman Pomeroy agreed to not encourage the intensity of the use; however, he suggested that a condition be added that would require the parking lot restriping to occur before any construction commences, and that 5 service bays should not be allowed. Commissioner Pers6n commented that the business demands more service bays,' and he stated his concern that the installation of equipment could occur illegally outside. Commissioner Edwards supported Chairman Pomeroy's foregoing statements. F • 4 Substitute motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3321 (Amended) subject to the.findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including conditions to reduce the number of service bays from 5 to 3, and a corresponding increase in parking, and that restriping the parking lot .occur prior to the new construction. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the 2 service bays at the rear of the property be eliminated so that the 3 service bays at the front of the property, •could• be . inspected more easily by Code Enforcement personnel. Chairman Pomeroy concurred with the suggestion. • • , . 1 1 . Commissioner Di Sano supported the motion to forward the -35L INDEX W� �:�, January 4, 1990 oMMISSIONERS MINUTES ROLL CALL Ayes Noes Absent CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH amended use permit back to the City Council on the basis that no recommendation only permits the applicants to abide by the original use permit. He stated that the applicants have outgrown the location and the motion directs the City Council to make the final decision. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker replied that the 3 covered service bays at the front of the property would be easier to monitor than not being specific about what service bays could be used. Commissioner Merrill concurred, and he said that 3 bays would also limit the number of employees. Substitute motion vas voted'ori to approve Use Permit No. 3321 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including the foregoing condition. SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED: Findings 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed project 3. The approval of Use "Permit No. 3321 (Amended) with suggested tandem parking for employees 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 alternative site plan approved by the Planning Commission at its January 4, 1990 meeting. 2. That the on -site. vehicular and pedestrian circulation -36- INDEX January 4, 1990 oMMISSIONERS MINUTES N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL system be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking areas shall be fully paved and appropriately striped in accordance with the approved parking plan, prior to the new construction. 3. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3321 shallbe fulfilled. 4. That a minimum of 14 parking spaces shall be provided on -site for employee and customer parking except that when West Coast. Highway is widened only 13 on -site parking spaces shall be required for such purposes. (Two of the required parking spaces shall be located in the rear building where the two service bays were eliminated by the Planning Commission). Installation bays shall not be included in the provision of required on -site parking. 5. That all installation activities shall be conducted within a building. The alarm systems shall not be sounded in the installation bay unless a mute device is installed in each case. That all stereo music shall be confined to the interior of the building. 6. That one handicapped parking space shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self -parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 7. That no auto detailing or window tinting activities shall be permitted on -site, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 8. That the applicants shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building and the implementation of this use permit. permits 9. 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 injury, is detrimental subject of this Use Permit, causes or to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. -37- ""7 January 4, 1990 jMMISSIONERS MINUTES AO A dD O. Oct G qp �y �O O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX _ CALL 10. 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. 11. The number of service bays shall be reduced from 5 to 3 bays. The 2 proposed service bays, at the rear of the property shall be eliminated. The Planning Commission, recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. A Use Permit No 3368 (]�jhlic •Hearing) Item No.lo Request to permit the construction of a ten unit res' ential UP3368 condominium development and related garages,• on property located in the Unclassified District; and the accep nce of an R910 environmental document. ripproved AND B. Resub ivi i n No. 910Pu li Heari Request to resubdivide an existing arcel of land into a single . parcel for a 10 unit residential ndommiu n development on property located in the Unclas.' ied District. LOCATION: • A po on of Lot 47, Newport Heights, loca d. at 2421 16th Street, on the s thwesterlyN side of 16th Street, between ustin Avenue and Irvine Avenue. ZONE: Unclassified APPLI Thompson Investment Co., Irvine O Same as applicant J es Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the development standards in the MFR District and the R-3 District. He said that the application was submitted to the City before the MFR . -38- 6 ALTERWATIVE y I �lI r�r�-fir Hkr . y 00, 1 I 3' 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ROBERT H. BURNHAM, CITY ATTORNEY, #44926 ROBIN FLORY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, #123326 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P. O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard RECENtvns' Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 714/644-3131 CITY OF NEUJPORT BEACH Attorneys for Plaintiff, MAR 12 1991 PO City of Newport Beach AM 70191)pIll112111213141516 A SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ) A Municipal Corporation, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) NANCY CLARK AND ROBERT CLARK, ) each individually and doing ) business as NEWPORT SOUND ) WAVES, ROBERT BRANDY, an ) individual, and DOES 1 ) through 10, inclusive, ) Defendants. ) NO. 63-16-14 DCM PROGRAM/DEPARTMENT 23 JUDGE RONALD H. BAUER SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JAMES M. SINASEK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DATE: March 19, 1991 TIME: 1:30 p.m. DEPT: 23 , I, JAMES M. SINASEK, declare as follows: 1. I am employed by the City of Newport Beach as a Code Enforcement Supervisor. On January 28, 1991, I signed a Declaration which was submitted in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Since that time I have again personally viewed'the premises at 2906 West Coast Highway, and I now wish to supplement my original Declaration with an updated report of the conditions at "Newport Soundwaves." gr/plead/clarksin.dec 1. A. AV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26', 27 28 2. The photographs of "Newport Soundwaves", which are attached to this Declaration as Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" were taken, at my request, by George Reis, a Photo I.D. Technician with the Newport Beach Police Department, on the following dates: Exhibit "A" - February 26, 1991 Exhibit "B" - March 4, 1991 Exhibit "C" - March 8, 1991 3. I personally observed the premises of "Newport Soundwaves" on February 26, 1991, March 4, 1991 and March 8, 1991, and can verify that the photographs attached as Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" accurately depict the property at 2906 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California on these dates, at which time I personally observed the following conditions at the property: A. Illegal Awning As shown in Exhibit "B", a large white awning has been erected over the outdoor installation bays. This awning was erected after the recent heavy .rains in the County. No permit for this temporary structure has been issued by either the Director of Community Development or the Planning Commission. The existence of this permitless awning on the property thus violates Section 20.30.015 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which requires that approval be obtained from the City of Newport Beach prior to the erection or use of a temporary structure on property within a commercial district. B. Outdoor Installation There are still three operable exterior service bays on the property to service customers. I have seen cars under the illegal awning parked there for service. I // gr/plead/chrksin.dec 2. Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 Z 21s 24 2r 2( 2, 2i C. Insufficient Parking As all three photographs show, the black Mercedes Limousine is continuously parked in front of "Newport Soundwaves" and renders one designated public parking space permanently unavailable. The license plates, which read "GEN RAL" have been removed from the limousine and it now has no license plates at all. As I believe it is illegal for a vehicle to be operated on public streets without license plates, I have no reason to believe that this car ever leaves the "Newport Soundwaves" premises. There still are less than fourteen (14) marked and designated parking spaces on the property. The aerial view in Exhibit "B" clearly shows the lack of designated parking at "Newport Soundwaves", in stark contrast to the properly striped parking spaces on the property next to "Newport Soundwaves". Abandoned vehicles are still stored on the rear of the property, taking up public parking spaces. D. Inadeauate Containerized Landscaping As the photographs show, I still have never seen any containerized landscaping on the property. E. Non -Conformance With Alternative Site Plan/Plot Plan Indoor service bays have still not been constructed and the additional parking has still not been provided. Plans for this project have still not been submitted to the Planning Department for approval I // gr/plead/clarksin.dec 3. 1 4. I have personal knowledge of the foregoing facts and, if 2 called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto. ih 3 EXECUTED on this day of March, 1991, at Newport Beach, 4 California. 5 6 mes M. Sina e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 gr/plead/clarksin.dec 4. 1 2 3'i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. On March 1991 I served the within SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION )F JAMES M. SINASER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFIS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION on the interested parties in said action by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at Newport Beach, California, addressed as follows: John Theodore Dean Michael Ayers Attorney at Law Gunsaulus & Reed 2675 Raven Circle, Box 2906 313 North Birch Street Corona, CA 92501 Santa Ana, CA 92701 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED on March H 1991 at Newport Beach, California. gr/plead/darksin.dec .w R t 4 COIA"ISSIONERS October 5, 1989 MINUTES ROLL CALL Request to consider recommending the revocation of Use Permit No. 3321, Newport Sound Waves, that specializes in the sale and installation of automobile accessories, for failure to comply with specific conditions of approval or to consider adding or modifying conditions of approval to said use permit. LOCATION: A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2906 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANTS: Nancy and Robert Clark OWNER: Robert Brandy, Pauma Valley James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that on this date prior to the subject public hearing, the applicant submitted revised plans and a letter from the applicants' attorney regarding the subject item. Mr. Hewicker admonished the applicants for their delay in responding to staffs appeals and their lack of cooperation with staff. Mr. Hewicker advised the Planning commission that if h assurance that theappl cants will cooperate soas to resolve the matter. Commissioner Pers6n pointed out that the Planning Commission is not required to consider material submitted to the Commission within 24 hours of the public hearing, and that the material submitted to the Commission just prior to the subject public hearing arrived too late. Commissioner Pers6n stated that he would not support a continuance of the public hearing. Commissioner Edwards agreed with the foregoing statement. Commissioner Pers6n referred to a letter dated October 19, 1988, tem,astating thas after t the applicants commission alowedto open fthe or -12- UP3321 Recommend. Revoca- tion I; .t . ` COMMISSIONERS VVIN6 e October 5, 1989 MINUTES COTY (OF VIEWP®RT (BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL business until after all of the conditions of approval were in compliance. Mrs. Nancy Clark, owner of Newport Sound Waves, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Clark requested a continuance of the item to October 19, 1989, to allow the Planning Commission additional time to review the submitted revised plans. She explained that the parking plans have become a problem inasmuch as the applicants have a desire to expand the business, and the plans previously submitted were not approved by staff. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Debay the applicants not returning telephone calls, Mrs. Clark regarding explained that she received one telephone message too late to return on Friday from Mr. Ward, Senior Planner. She explained that she is not always available at the business and does not receive messages from the employees. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano regarding the letters to the applicants from staff stating that the applicants have not complied with the conditions of approval, Mrs. Clark explained that estimates have been received regarding the driveway and the property owner has agreed to pay for one- half of the expense. She stated that inasmuch as the parking plan was not approved, the applicants could not stripe the parking area; however, the paint and signs have been purchased. Commissioner Edwards addressed the number of conditions that the applicants have not complied with, not implemented or maintained. Mr. Hewicker stated that as a result of the problems that the applicants have had in submitting the new plans, the applicants propose to request that the Planning Commission amend some of the conditions previously imposed. Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicants are not in compliance with 11 conditions, and the reason is that the applicants are attempting to find alternatives. Commissioner Pers6n stated that at the August 18, 1988 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant, Mrs. Clark, was present, and agreed with Use Permit No. 3321, findings and conditions. Commissioner Pers6n asked Mrs. Clark if she received the notice -13- COMVISSIONERS October 5, 1989 MINUTES INDEX ROLL CALL from the City dated October 18, 1988, stating that the applicant could not implement the use permit until the conditions have been complied with, and Mrs. Clark agreed that she had received the letter. Commissioner Pers6n stated that one condition that was not implemented was that the applicant shall apply for and obtain a Coastal Development Permit prior to occupancy and authoi ration of the use permit, and Mrs. Clark agreed to said condit: )n. Commissioner Pers6n stated that one year and 14 days after the August 18, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, on September 2, 1989, the applicants applied for a Coastal Development Permit, and he asked if the applicants had the Permit now. Mrs. Clark replied "no", that the applicants had submitted the application twice and twice it had been returned because it was incomplete. Commissioner Pers6n stated that during the past 12 months the City advised the applicants that they were violating Condition No. 6, installing, window tinting and auto detailing outside of the building. Mrs. Clark replied that they are no longer window tinting or auto detailing; however, occasionally quick stereo installations have been done outside. Commissioner Pers6n commented that maybe the size of the facility is not adequate. Mrs. Clark agreed. In response to Commissioner Pers6n's statement regarding the applicant's submission of documents, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the Planning Commission may continue the public hearing to consider the submitted documents; however, the Planning Commission is not required to consider the documents. Commissioner Pers6n asked Mrs. Clark if the applicants submitted a circulation plan. Mrs. Clark affirmatively replied that the plan submitted prior to the subject public hearing was an on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation parking plan. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mrs. Clark stated that she read the subject staff report, that she recognized the letters that the City sent to the applicants, and that she has had meetings with staff during the past 12 months. Mr. Cameron Quinn, attorney for the applicants, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Quinn explained that the documents that were submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the subject public hearing was for the purpose of informing -14- 1 ' ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 5, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INOEX m the Commission what has been accomplished. Mr. Quinn requested consideration of the revised plans, and the request to continue the item to the October 19, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. * Motion was made to recommend to the City Council that Use Motion Permit No. 3321 be revoked. Commissioner Pers6n referred to the constant number of letters and contacts made by staff, the continued failure of the applicants to communicate with the staff to abide by the conditions of approval, and not to show any interest until the day of the public hearing. Commissioner Pers6n rebuked businesses that refuse to abide by the conditions of approval that have been set forth by the Planning _ Commission, and that are reasonable requests by the City. Commissioner Glover concurred with the foregoing statements. She addressed the attitude of the applicants towards the requests made by the City, and the responsibilities of a business owner. Ayes * * * * Motion was voted on to recommend to the City Council the Absent * * revocation of Use Permit No. 3321 based on the following finding. MOTION CARRIED. ` Finding: That the applicant for Use Permit No. 3321 has failed to comply i with various conditions of approval as established by the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 18, 1988. Said conditions include the following: 1. That the proposed project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking areas shall be appropriately striped in accordance with the approved parking plan. -15- COMMISSIONERS October 5, 1989 MINUTES COTY OF G3EWPOR7 BEAM INDEX ROLL CALL 4. That the doors to the installation bays in the front and rear buildings shall be designed in a manner so as to provide acceptable on -site circulation. The design of said doors shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 5. iat a minimum of 13 parking spaces shall be 1 ovided on -site except that when West Coast Highway is widened only 12 on -site parking spaces shall be required. 6. That all installation, window tinting and auto detailing activities shall be conducted within a building. The alarm systems shall not be sounded in the installation bay unless a mute device is installed in each case. That all stereo music shall be confined to the interior of the building. 12. That the applicant shall install a system of containerized landscaping along the building frontage adjacent to West Coast Highway. Said landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department and shall be installed prior to the implementation of the use permit. 13. That one handicapped parking space shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking. Said parking space shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times and shall be identified with a handicapped sign on a post. 14. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits and the implementation of this use permit. 16. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. -16- I' - COMMISSIONERS October 5, 1989 MINUTES poi �' o ,a INDEX ROLL CALL 17. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements. 18. That a 6 foot wide sidewalk and drive apron be constructed and the existing utility box raised to grade along the West Coa& Highway frontage under an encroachment permit • sued by the California Department of Transportation within 120 days of approval of the subject use permit unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. iJse Permit No 3131 (Amended)(Public Hearinel item No.5 Request to amend a previously approved use permit and a UP3131A modification to the Zoning Code that permitted the installation of various ground identification signs (cube and pylon signs) at Approved the major entrances to Newport Center. The proposed amendment involves a request to add additional raised letter signs to the existing cube and pylon signs which identify Fashion Island and the activities within the center. The proposal also includes a request to add a band of neon at the top of each cube sign. Y - LOCATION: Parcels located at the southeasterly and :q southwesterly corners of San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Drive; at the southeasterly and southwesterly corner of San + 'y Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Rosa Drive; at the southeasterly and northeasterly corners of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive; and within the center median of Newport Center Drive at East Coast Highway; in Newport Center. ZONES: O-S, A-P, and C-O-H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant -17- City Council Meeting February 12, 1990 Agenda Item No. lb -' I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Use Per No 3321 (Revocation) Request to consider the revocation of Use Permit No. 3321, NEWPORT SOUND WAVES, on property located at 2906 West Coast Highway, for failure to comply with specific Conditions of Approval. LOCATION: A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2906 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANTS: Nancy and Robert Clark OWNER: Robert Brandy, Pauma Valley Al lication This is a request to consider the revocation of Use Permit No. 3321 for Newport Sound Waves due to failure to comply with specific Conditions of Approval. In accordance with Section 20.80.090 B of the Municipal Code, any use permit granted in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of the use permit are violated. Su ested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, sustain, modify or overrule the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Background At its meeting of November 13, 1989, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation to revoke Use Permit No. 3321. At that time, the City Council voted to continue the matter to its meeting of November 27, 1989, so as to allow additional time for staff to meet with the applicants, determine appropriate restrictions TO: City Council - 2. on the business, and prepare an agreement that would allow the Council to revoke the use permit in the event of noncompliance with the restrictions. On November 27, 1989, the City Council authorized the subject agreement, and continued the public hearing for the revocation of Use Permit No. 3321 to its meeting of February 12, 1990. The restrictions of the agreement are set forth in the letter agreement signed by Nancy Clark and included as an attachment to the attached Planning Commission staff report, dated January 4, 1990. In accordance with paragraph "H" of said agreement, Newport Sound Waves was required to submit an application to amend Use Permit No. 3321 on or before December 8, 1989, and, upon approval, diligently pursue compliance with all conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on review or appeal. At its meeting of January 4, 1990, the Planning Commission approved (4 Ayes, 2 Noes, i Absent) an amendment to Use Permit No. 3321 which involved a request -to amend certain conditions of the original use permit regarding the number and location of off- street parking and to permit the additional service bays on the property. The Planning Commission's approval limited the number of service bays to three (where five service bays had been requested) and required that 14 on -site parking spaces be provided for employee and customer parking. It was also pointed out to the Planning Commission that all of the terms and conditions of the agreement had been fulfilled. A list of all the Planning Commission's Findings and Conditions of Approval are set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated January 4, 1990. Staff has also attached a copy of the January 4, 1990 Planning Commission staff report for Use Permit No. 3321 (Amended). In light of the Planning Commission's approval of Use Permit No. 3321 (Amended) and the efforts of the applicants to satisfy the terms of the previously mentioned letter agreement, it is staffs suggestion that the City Council overrule the Planning Commission's recommendation to revoke the original Use Permit No. 3321. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By g&QX.4du WILLIAM WARD Senior Planner Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report for Use Permit No. 3321 (Amended) dated January 4, 1990, with attachments Excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated January 4, 1990 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting January 4. 1990 Agenda Item No. 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Planning Department Use Permit No 3321 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of a retail sales facility specializing in the sales and installation of automotive electronics and accessories. The proposed amendment involves a request to amend certain conditions of the original use permit regarding the number and location of off-street parking and to permit additional service bays on the property. LOCATION: A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2906 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: APPLICANTS: OWNER: Application SP-5 Nancy and Robert Clark Robert Brandy, Pauma Valley This application involves a request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of a retail sales facility specializing in the sales and installation of automotive electronics and accessories. The proposed amendment involves a request to amend certain conditions of the original use permit regarding the number and location of off-street parking and to permit additional service bays on the property. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. Back rg ound At its meeting of August 18, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3321 with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval as indicated in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated August 18, 1989. Subsequent to the approval of said application, staff became aware that the commercial use was open for business without complying with several conditions of approval of said use permit. The Assistant Code Enforcement Officer informed the applicants that all conditions of A4 TO: Planning Commission - 2. approval must be met by December 8, 1988. Since no action was taken to resolve the problem, the matter was referred to the City Attorney's Office. After several months of attempting to work with the applicants, only a few of the conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3321 were met. At its meeting of June 22, 1989, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to review Use Permit No. 3321 so as to consider recommending to the City Council its revocation due to noncompliance with the following conditions of approval: 1. That the proposed project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking areas shall be appropriately striped in accordance with the approved parking plan. 4. That the doors to the installation bays in the front and rear buildings shall be designed in a manner so as to provide acceptable on -site circulation. The design of said doors shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That a minimum of 13 parking spaces shall be provided on -site except that when West Coast Highway is widened only 12 on -site parking spaces shall be required. 6. That all installation, window tinting and auto detailing activities shall be conducted within a building. The alarm systems shall not be sounded in the installation bay unless a mute device is installed in each case. That all stereo music shall be confined to the interior of the building. 12. That the applicant shall install a system of containerized landscaping along the building frontage adjacent to West Coast Highway. Said landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department and shall be installed prior to the implementation of the use permit. 13. That one handicapped parking space shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be .used solely for handicapped self parking. Said parking space shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times and shall be identified with a handicapped sign on a post. 14. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits and the implementation of this use permit. TO: Planning Commission - 3. 16. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 17. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements. 18. That a 6 foot wide sidewalk and drive apron be constructed and the existing utility box raised to grade along the West Coast Highway frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation within 120 days of approval of the subject use permit unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Said hearing was scheduled for August 10, 1989, which was subsequently continued to October 5, 1989, so as to allow the applicants additional time to prepare plans for a building addition which would allow for a more acceptable on -site parking design. However,1he applicants failed to submit the new plans in sufficient time to allow staff to review the proposed changes to the project. As a result, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council revoke Use Permit No. 3321. Said action was taken with the findings set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated October 5, 1989. At its meetings of November 13, 1989, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation to revoke Use Permit No. 3321. At that time, the City Council voted to continue the matter to its meeting of November 27, 1989, so as to allow additional time for staff to meet with the applicants, determine appropriate restrictions on the business, and prepare an agreement that would allow the Council to revoke the use permit in the event of noncompliance with the restrictions. Said restrictions are set forth in the attached letter agreement signed by Nancy Clark. In accordance with paragraph "H" of said agreement, Newport Sound Waves was required to submit an application to amend Use Permit No. 3321 on or before December 8, 1989, and, upon approval, diligently pursue compliance with all conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on review or appeal. The application in question has been filed by the applicants so as to comply with the above requirement. It should also be noted that since the Planning Commission's review of the original application, the applicant has complied with Conditions No. 12, 16, 17, and 18. The applicants are seeking to amend Condition No. 5 in conjunction with the subject application, and they are waiting for the outcome of this application before implementing Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, and 14. With regard to Condition No. 6 which requires that all installation activities be done in a building, the City Council agreed to allow the applicant to temporarily use outdoor areas between the two buildings and at the rear of the back building for installation activities. In conjunction with the original approval of Use Permit No. 3321, the subject business included the sale and installation of automobile accessories in the existing 1;408± square r(V TO: Planning Commission - 4. foot commercial building located on the front of the property. Said approval also included the conversion of a two story residential building located at the rear of the property so as to use the 630± square foot ground floor area for auto detailing and window tinting and the 667± square foot second floor area for related offices and storage. Based on the proposed uses of the two buildings which contain a total of 2,705± square feet, the total parking requirement based on one parking space for each 250 square feet was 11 spaces (2,705± sq.ft.= 250 sq.ft.= 10.82 or 11 spaces). The original parking design submitted by the applicants was unacceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Therefore, staff worked with the applicants to develop a parking plan that provided 12 parking spaces (excluding the parking space within the future widening area of West Coast Highway). A parking plan that was acceptable to the applicants and the City Traffic Engineer was developed and approved by the Planning Commission. A copy of the current, approved parking plan is attached for the Planning Commission's information. Analysis , As indicated previously, the applicant is proposing to amend the number and location of the off-street parking spaces required for the subject business as well as proposing to add three additional installation bays. Two of the new bays will be located at the rear of the front building where only one installation bay currently exists. Said addition will consist of 456± square feet of floor area. The third installation bay will be located on the ground floor of the rear building where only one bay currently exists and will involve a 48± square foot addition to said building. It should be noted that the subject business is no longer involved in auto detailing and window tinting which were the activities previously conducted on the ground floor of the rear building. Therefore, there will be a total of five installation bays used in conjunction with the installation of electronic accessories for automobiles. Said accessories include automobile security and alarm systems, car phones and stereo sound systems. Required Off -Street Parking As indicated in the previo s Background Section, the parking requirement established in conjunction with the approval of the original Use Permit No. 3321 was based on the standard commercial parking formula of one parking space for each 250 square feet of floor area. In calculating the parking requirement, staff used the total floor area of both buildings and made no distinction between areas used for retail sales, offices and storage from floor area used for installation activities. As mentioned previously, said calculation resulted in a parking requirement of 11 parking spaces. However, in the process of reevaluating the subject application, it is staffs opinion that inasmuch as the installation activities are merely supportive of the retail sales activities, the installation bays should not be included in the parking calculation. Based on this criteria, the total floor area used in calculating the off-street parking requirement would be 2,077± square feet which includes all of the retail area, display areas and storage areas in the front TO: Planning Commission - 5. building (1,408± square feet') and all of the second floor of the rear building which is used for related offices and storage (667± square feet). Based on this square footage, a total of 9 parking spaces would be required (2,075± sq.ft. _ 250 sq.ft. = 8.3 or 9 spaces). Although the above parking calculation seems reasonable, it should also be noted that the applicants have indicated that there will a total of 8 employees on the premises during peak hours of operation. Therefore, it would seem in this particular case that 9 panting spaces would not be adequate inasmuch as only one parking space would be available for customers and it is assumed that said parking space would be the handicapped space inasmuch as there are no handicapped persons employed by the applicants. As provided on the attached site plan submitted by the applicants, 13 parking spaces are proposed. However, 5 of the parking spaces shown are also to be used as installation bays which will not be available for customer or employee parking. Therefore, said plan provides only. 8 parking spaces, one of which will be for handicapped parking. Such a panting proposal would be 1 space short of meeting the employee parking demand and there would be no parking for customers. In an effort to provide additional parking on -site, staff has suggested that two additional parking spaces could be provided in the rear parking area by using a tandem configuration as shown on the attached alternative parking plan. Such a proposal would require that the handicapped parking space be moved so as to occupy one of the two parallel spaces within the driveway. Two additional parking spaces could also be provided in the area between the two buildings provided the area was fully paved. Therefore, the alternative parking plan would provide 8 employee parking spaces and 4 customer parking spaces, one of which would be for handicapped parking. It should also be noted that the parking spaces located in front of the building are within the future widening area of West Coast Highway and will be removed at such time as the highway is widened, thereby leaving only 3 parking spaces for customer parking. Notwithstanding the design changes to the proposed parking, staff is concerned that the amount of on -site parking provided will be insufficient to meet the parking demand of the proposed use. Specific Findings Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be 'The Site Plan submitted by the applicants shows only the square footage of the retail sales area containing 1,154 square feet. TO: Planning Commission - 6. detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Use Permit No. 3321 (Amended), the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny this application, the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit 'B" are suggested. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By 2ir' '11 r , 4-� f-- W. William Ward Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Vicinity Map Excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated August 18, 1988 and October 5, 1989 Excerpts of the City Council minutes dated November 13, 1989 and November 27, 1989 Current Approved Parking Plan Letter Agreement Site Plan submitted by applicant Alternative parking plan F:\WP50\BILL—W\UP\UP3321A.2 TO: Planning Commission - 7. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3321 (AMENDED) January 4, 1990 Findings: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed project. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3321 with suggested tandem parking for employees 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 alternative site plan approved by the Planning Commission at its January 4, 1990 meeting, except as noted below. 2. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking areas shall be fully paved and appropriately striped in accordance with the approved parking plan. 3. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3321 shall be fulfilled. 4. That a minimum of 12 parking spaces shall be provided on - site for employee and customer parking except that when West Coast Highway is widened only,11 on -site parking spaces shall be required for such purposes. Installation bays shall not be included in the provision of required on -site parking. TO: Planning Commission - 8. 5. That all installation activities shall be conducted within a building. The alarm systems shall not be sounded in the installation bay unless a mute device is installed in each case. That all stereo music shall be confined to the interior of the building. 6. That one handicapped parking space shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self -parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 7. That no auto detailing or window tinting activities shall be permitted on -site, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 8. That the applicants shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits and the implementation of this use permit. 9. 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. 10. That this Use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as speed in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. TO: Planning Commission - 9. EXHIBIT "B' FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 3321 (AMENDED) 1. That the proposed establishment of three additional installation bays would represent an intensification of use which will increase the demand for on -site parking. 2. That the on -site parking proposed by the applicants is inadequate to meet the employee and customer parking demand for the use. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3321 (Amended) will, 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. r WelAll r7** WAP L-J CLIFF ORIVC PhiK R-/ N s T SCE M4, . '. s DISTRICTING NPORT BEACH — C AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL R—A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C—I DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL C-2 RESTIC MULTIPLE FAMLY RESIDENTIAL M 't COMBINING DISTRICTS 104-5 - P. 91.1twu MAP ALIFORN MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL LIGHT COMMERCIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING 9 / ORD. NO 61, Dec 2.tS5o M <( t ( IONERS August 18, 1988 C i ♦ OF i P i/! /fir BEACH Use Permit No 3321 {Public Hearing)_ t of a retail Request tO permit he insttheisales sale and installationof facility specializing automobile accessories and auto detailing on property located in the "Retail and service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. LOCATION: A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2906 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of st BoulevardastHighway, between North Newport nd Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANTS: Nancy & Robert Clark OWNER: Robert Brandy, Pauma Valley MINUTES INDEX Item No.2 UP3321 Approved The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mrs. Nancy Clark, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Clark stated that she concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the following exceptions. In reference to Condition No. 12 requesting containerized landscaping, Mrs. Clark stated that the applicants have invested in property improvements and that the property owner would benefit more by said improvements. Chairman Pers6n pointed out that everyone benefits from landscaped improvements. In reference Mrs. Clark's concern regarding Condition No. 10 requesting a 16 foot 6 inch wide dedication on West Coast Highway, Chairman tPers6n he explained that the condition only applies applicant's leasehold interest. In reference to Mrs. Clark's request for an permit shall explanation expire unless Condition 21,."that the use p unlessexercised within 24 months..", Chairman Pers6n explained that the applicant must comply with the conditions of he use permit within 24 months from the date of approval. Discussion ensued between Mrs. Clark and Mr. Hewicker regarding the restriction of outdoor speaker systems. Discussion ensued between Mrs. Clark and Commissioner Merrill regarding the three permitted business signs that are currently located on the site. In reference to Condition No. 6 regarding automobile -3- elf.. ` MINUTES MISSIONERS ROLL CALL Motion All Ayes August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IN detailing, Commissioner Merrill stated that auto detailing is only permitted indoors. In reference to Condition No. 15, Mr. Hewicker explained that the pe automobile wash area must consist of a curb, roof and wall so the wash water does not enter into the sewer system. Discussion ensued between Mrs. Clark and Commissioner Pomeroy regarding automobile window tinting, and Mrs. Clark stated that the customers are required to sign a disclaimer stating that it is illegal to tint automobile windows to a specific degree of intensity. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that he has a fundamental problem that the City would"a'llow illegal window tinting. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mrs. Clark replied that the applicants do not intend to market tires and rims as accessory items, inasmuch as they do not have an appropriate parking area for installation purposes. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by comisved sioner parking Merrill regarding Condition No. 2, the appro Mr. Hewicker replied that the circulation system is subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding a parking plan to depict the canvas covered area outside for the automobile wash, William Ward, Senior Planner, replied that the applicant indicated that the automobile detailing would be on the ground floor por ion of the rear building and that the tented area woul . not be used for detailing. Commissioner Merrill suggested that the operating hours be restricted so as to curtail the noise from sound producing activities. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3321 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including the addition of Condition No. 22 to state: "That the operating hours of sound producing activities, such as auto derailing and installation, shall be limited to between. 7 a.m, to 7 p.m." Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Pindirzs: -4- ROLL CALL ISSIONERS qy°qJ- (`? MINUTES August 18, 1988 COTY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed project. 3. The Police Department has indicated that it does not contemplate, any problems from the proposed operation. 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 5. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3321 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 site plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking areas shall be appropriately striped in accordance with the approved parking plan. 3. That all employees shall be required to park their vehicles on -site. 4. That the doors to the installation bays in the front and rear buildings shall be designed in a manner so as to provide acceptable on -site circulation. The design of said doors shall be -5- 79 IONERS l' "" MINUTES August 18, 1988 subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. l be 5 That a provided minimum on-ste Of exceptpath that when spacesal West Coast Highway is widened only 12 on -site parking spaces shall be required. 6. That all installation, window tinting and auto detailing activities shall be conducted within a building. The alarm systems Shall not be sounded in the installation bay unless a mute device is installed in each case. That all stereo music shall be confined to the interior of the building. 7. That the display of all products for sale shall be located within a building. he econd he B. That building shall be used tforsfloor relatedofficestof the subject project and shall not be leased or rented to a separate tenant. 9. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach is Municipal Code unless an exception per mit approved by the City. Said signs shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 10. That prior to the issuance of any building permits or implementation of the use permit, the lessee shall dedicate to the City for street and highway purposes, the lessee's i terest in a 16 ft.-6 in.± wide parcel adjacent to ' ;st Coast Highway. 11. That no outdoor sound system or paging device shall be utilized on -site. 12. That the applicant shall install a system of containerized landscaping along the building frontage adjacent to West Coast Highway. Said landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department and shall be installed prior tc the implementation of the use permit. 13. That one -handicapped parking space shall b< designated within the on -site parking area an( shall be used solely for handicapped self parking INDEX rim CALL IoNERS ko O�qy f CITY OF NEWPORT August 18, 1988 MINUTES INDEX Said parking space shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times and shall be identified with a handicapped sign on a post. 14. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits and the implementation of this use permit. 15. That no washing of automobiles shall be permitted unless a washing area with appropriate drain equipped with a grease trap is installed within the ground floor portion of the rear building which is to be used for automobile detailing. 16. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. - 17. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements. 18. That 6 foot wide sidewalk and drive apron be constructed and the existing utility box raised to grade along the West Coast Highway frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportaion within 120 days of approval of the subject Use Permit unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 19. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from West Coast Highway and adjoining properties and shall be located in a manner which is consistent with the on -site parking design. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. That the operating hours of sound producing -7- YJ MINUTES, ISSIONERS CALL August 18, 1988 • activities such as auto detailing and installations shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays and Saturdays. end a previously approved use permit which permitted t construction of a multi -use aquatic center in the Unc assified District. The proposed amendment involves a r uest to revise the location of the previously appro d launching dock within the project and the accepts ce of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot '165, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 420 North Star Lane on the northerly side of North Star ne, easterly of White Cliffs Drive, in stcliff. ZONE: Unc ssiriea APPLICANTS: City Newport Beach and the Newport Beach A atic Center, Newport Beach OWNER: City of Ne ort Beach and the County of Orange The public hearing was openeN in•connection with this item, and Curt Fleming, Preside t of the Newport Aquatic Center, and Bruce Ibbetson, m ber of the Board of Directors, appeared before the P1 ning Commission. In response to a question posed by airman Pers6n, Mr. Fleming replied that the applican concur •ith the findings and conditions in Exhibit Mr. Ibbetson described the ramp and the dock areas. Mr. Ibbetson and Chairman Pers6n discussed he ramp that would service the dock. In response to que tions posed by Mr. Ibbetson regarding Conditions No. 6 nd No. 7, Chairman Pers6n stated that said conditions wo ld apply only during the construction phase of the proj t. In reference to Condition No. 12 regarding the loca 'on of the dock basin, Mr. Ibbetson explained that inte sted officials will be onsite during construction to be certain that necessary adjustments have been ma Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that Condition No. 12 b amended to state "That based on preliminary plans that in INDEX Item No.3 UP 310 4A Approved {S October 5, 1989 MINUT ES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH lelotx o No 3321 (Revocation)(C'nntinued Public Hearin Ql lise IItem No_4 ____. consider recommending the revocation of Use Permit UP3321 Request to No. 3321, Newport Sound Waves, that specializes in the sale and for failure to omply with Recommend. installation of automobile accessories, adding or modifying Revoca- tion specific conditions of approval or to consider conditions of approval to said use permit. LOCATION: A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located the at 2906 West Coast Highway, on northerly side of West Coast Highway, between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANTS: Nancy and Robert Clark OWNER: Robert Brandy, Pauma Valley James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that on this date prior the applicant submitted revised to the subject public hearing, letter from the applicants' attorney regarding the plans and a subject item. Mr. Hewicker admonishedealt eand appl cant for lack delay in responding to staffs app theirof Mr. Hewicker advised the Planning cooperation with staff. stafff the item is continued that that the applicants cooperate will operate so as to resolve the assurance asst matter. Commissioner Pers6n pointed out that the Planning Commission is not required to consider material submitted to the Commission that the material within 24 hours of the public hearing, and to the Commission just prior to the subject public submitted hearing arrived too late. Commissioner Pers6n stated that he ustatement. would not support Commissioner Ed ards agreed with the foregoing Commissioner Pers6n referred to a letter dated October 19, 1988, of allowed to open foranning Commission approved the subject ys th 60itemdastating that thefter applicants were -12- 4 •-aMPAtSStONERS � ROLL CALL (� October 5, 1989 MINUTES business until after all of the conditions of approval were in compliance. Mrs. Nancy Clark, owner of Newport Sound Waves, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Clark requested a continuance of the item to October 19, 1989, to allow the Planning Commission additional time to review the submitted revised plans. She explained that the parking plans have become a problem inasmuch as the applicants have a desire to expand the business, and the plans previously submitted were not approved by staff. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Debay regarding the applicants not returning telephone calls, Mrs. Clark explained that she received one telephone message too late to return on Friday from Mr. Ward, Senior Planner. She explained that she is not always available at the business and does not receive messages from the employees. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano regarding the letters to the applicants from staff stating that the applicants have not complied with the conditions of approval, Mrs. Clark explained that estimates have been received regarding the driveway and the property owner has agreed to pay for one- half of the expense. She stated that inasmuch as the parking plan was not approved, the applicants could not stripe the parking area; however, the paint and signs have been purchased. Commissioner Edwards addressed the number of conditions that the applicants have not complied with, not implemented or maintained. Mr. Hewicker stated that as a result of the problems that the applicants have had in submitting the new plans, the applicants propose to request that the Planning Commission amend some of the conditions previously imposed. Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicants are not in compliance with 11 conditions, and the reason is that the applicants are attempting to find alternatives. Commissioner Pers6n stated that at the August 18, 1988 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant, Mrs. Clark, was present, and agreed with Use Permit No. 3321, findings and conditions. Commissioner Pers6n asked Mrs. Clark if she received the notice IN®EX -13- iSSIO0ERS ROLL CALL ( BFltlTES �' Uui.iier .i, i';1�. WDEX rom the City dated October 18, 1988, stating that the applicant ;ould not implement the use permit until the conditions have Seen complied with, and Mrs. Clark agreed that she had received the letter. Commissioner Pers6n stated that one condition that was not implemented was that the applicant shall apply for and obtain a Coastal Development Permit prior to occupancy and authorization of the use permit, and Mrs. Clark agreed to said condition. Commissioner Pers6n stated that one year and 14 days after the August 18, 1988, Planning Commission for meeting, Castal September _2, 1989, the applicants applied Development Permit, and he asked if the applicants had the Permit now. Mrs. Clark replied no , that the applicants had submitted the application twice and twice it had been returned because it was incomplete. Commissioner Pers6n stated that during the past 12 months the City advised the applicants that they were violating Condition No. 6, installing, window tinting and auto detailing outside of the building. Mrs. Clark replied that they are no longer window tinting or auto detailing; however, occasionally quick stereo installations have been done outside. Commissioner Pers6n commented that maybe the size of the facility is not adequate. Mrs. Clark agreed. In response to COm. missioner Pers6n's statement regarding the applicant's submission of documents, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the Planning Commission may continue the public hearing to consider the submitted documents; however, the Planning Commission is not required to consider the documents. Commissioner Pers6n asked Mrs. Clark if the applicants submitted a circulation plan. Mrs. Clark affirmatively replied that the plan submitted prior to the subject public hearing was an on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation parking plan. In ssione Pers6n, Mrs. Clark stated that sheeonse to tread the subjeons posed ct sttaaff report,rthat she recognized the letters th staff theapplicants, 12 months. that she has hadmeetings widuring the Mr. Cameron Quirin, attorney for the applicants, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Quinn explained that the documents that were submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the subject public hearing was for the purpose of informing -14- r�� IssIONERS October 5, 1989 MINUTES OLL CALL INDEX the Commission what has been accomplished. Mr. Quinn requested consideration of the revised plans, and the request to continue the item to the October 19, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to recommend to the City Council that Use Permit No. 3321 be revoked. Commissioner Pers6n referred to the constant number of letters and contacts madeby staff, the continued failure of the applicants to communicate with the staff to abide by the conditions of approval, and not to show any interest until the day of the public hearing. Commissioner Pers6n rebuked businesses that refuse to abide by the conditions of approval that have been set forth by the Planning Commission, and that are reasonable requests by the City. Commissioner Glover concurred with the foregoing statements. She addressed the attitude of the applicants towards the requests made by the City, and the responsibilities of a business owner. Ayes * * * * Motion was voted on to recommend to the City Council the Absent * * revocation of Use Permit No 3321 based on the following finding. MOTION CARRIED. Finding - That the applicant for Use Permit No. 3321 has failed to comply with various conditions of approval as established by the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 18, 1988. Said conditions include the following: 1. That the proposed project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking areas shall be appropriately striped in accordance with the approved parking plan. -15- A wS'SI�N�F85 �( /(r' l October S, 1989 MINUTES 4. That the doors to the installation bays in the front and rear buildings shall be designed in a manner so as to provide acceptable on -site circulation. The design of said doors shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That a minimum of 13 parking spaces shall be provided on -site except that when West Coast Highway is widened only 12 on -site parking spaces shall be required. 6. That all installation, window tinting and auto detailing activities shall be conducted within a building. The alarm systems shall not be sounded in the installation bay unless a mute device is installed in each case. That all stereo music shall be confined to the interior of the building. 12. That the applicant shall install a system of containerized landscaping along the building frontage adjacent to West Coast Highway. Said roval Of the PlanningtDepartment anll be d shall be installedct to the rior to the implementation of the use permit. 13. That one handicapped parking space shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking. Said parking space shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times and shall be identified with a handicapped sign on a post. A That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits and the implementation of this use permit. structed as 16. by Ordinance at all oand he Public vements be nWorks Department. d -16- INDEX �C October 5, 1989 MINUTES CALL 17. That arrangements be made with thePublic Works a ory Department in order to guarantee saticompletion of the public improvements. 18. That a 6 foot wide sidewalk and drive apron be constructed and the existing utility box raised to grade along the West Coast Highway frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the California -Department of Transportation t inunl120 otherwise s of approval of the subject use permit approved by the Public Works Department. s s s Item R nest to amend a previously approved use permit and a UP3131a mod 4ion to the Zoning Code that purbeeltted the and pylon signs)oat approved of vari ground identification signs ( the majo entrances to Newport Center. The proposed amendment Ives a request to pylon signs add whichaddition denal sed letter tify Fashion signs to the a in cube and g also Island and the a 'vities within the center. The proposal includes a request add a band of neon at the top of each cube sign. LOCATION: Parcels ocated at. the southeasterly and southwest ly corners of San Joaquin Hills Road and anta Cruz Drive; at the southeasterly a southwesterly corner of San Joaquin Hills Ro and Santa Rosa Drive; at the southeasterly d northeasterly corners of Jamboree Road an anta Barbara Drive; and within the center than of Newport Center Drive at East Co t Highway; in Newport Center. ZONES: O-S, A-P, and C-O-H APPLICANT* The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER; Same as applicant -17- �.' WT`f OF NEWPORT BLAL MINUTES �� COUNCIL MEMBERS \yF�oyFFPyt�A�'�\ November 13. 1989 INDEX ROLL CALL• Motion All Ayes x Hen no others wishing to address the Counci , he public hearing was closed. Motion was made (a)nAdopt Tproposed 20 Ordinance No. 89-36, B itle 20 Co establish regulations tainingitl. to low- and moderate -income hous within the coastal zone; and (b) Adopt Resolution No. 89-120 to approve fees Res 8 established by the Ordinance. 6. Mayor Strauss opened the public hearing U/P 3 regarding REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT NO. (88) 3321 for failure to comply with specific Conditions of Approval of said use permit, being a request of NANCY AND ROBERT CLARK (NEWPORT SOUND WAVES) to permit the establishment of a retail sales facility specializing in the sale and installation of automobile accessories and auto detailing, on property located at 2906 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of the highway between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue in Mariners Mile; zoned SP-5. Report from the Planning Department. The City Manager referenced the staff report which listed it violations of the subject use permit. He stated that some of the 11 violations have been partially satisfied, particularly Condition No. 12 relating to containerized landscaping. The facility has been in operation illegally for over one year, and the applicants were aware since October 18. 1988 that the use, permit could not be implemented until all of the Conditions of Approval had been met. Ted Dean, 2678 Raven Circle, Corona, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Council and stated that the applicant has submitted revised plans which now satisfy the parking requireme; s and also the requirement to work with an enclosed area. The applicant: have terminated the window tinting and auto detailing portions of their service and have made arrangements to handle larger vehicles at another location in Costa Mesa. An encroachment permit has been obtained from CalTrans as required. The applicants have spent a considerable amount of money on their building, rather than complying with all Volume 43 - Page 455 9-120 321 �V ',ITY OF NEWPORT BSA COUNCIL MEMBERS Alf 9\ November 13. 1989 MINUTES INDEX RVLL v of the conditions of approval of the use U/P 3321 permit immediately as it was their understanding at the Planning Commission hearing they had 24 months in which to comply with all conditions. lie suggested this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission so that the applicants can pursue compliance with "appropriate speed." Dr. Jan D. Vanderaloot, 2221 16th Street, addressed the Council and questioned why the applicants have taken so long to satisfy the conditions of their use permit. He stated the primary concern of residents in Newport Heights is the noise which emanates from their building when the applicants are working outside, and strongly urgedthat Condition No. 6 be enforced immediately which requires that all stereo music be confined to the interior of the building. Hearing no others wishing to address the ` Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to uphold the decision Notion x of the Planning Commission, and revoke Use Permit No. 3321. Council Member Cox spoke against the motion stating he felt this issue should be referred back to the Planning Commission. Following discussion, Council Member Hart amended her motion to revoke said use permit, if all conditions of approval have not been met by December 11, 1989. Discussion ensued with regard to the Notion x revised plans which had been recently All Ayes submitted, and following consideration, Council Member Hart withdrew her motion, and motion was made by Mayor Strauss to reopen the public hearing and continue this matter to November 27, 1989, to allow the staff to review said plans and work with applicants regarding compliance of their use permit. Nnyet Strauss opened the public hearing GPA 89-2(K) regarding: (45) A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89-2(K) - quest of BALBOA YACHT CLUB, Cor a del Mar, to amend the Land Use E ent of the Newport Beach General an for the Bayside Drive Volume 43 - Pa 456 \I ,) 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEAL MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS November 27. I989 D. HEARINGS: Mayor Plummer opened the continued U/P 3321(R) public hearing regarding REVOCATION OF (88) USE PERMIT No. 3321 for failure to comply with specific Conditions of Approval of said use permit, being a request of NANCY AND ROBERT CLARK (NEWPORT SOUND WAVES) to permit the establishment of a retail sales facility specializing in the sale and installation of automobile accessories and auto detailing; on property located at 2906 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of the highway between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue in Mariners Mile; zoned SP-5. Report from the City Attorney regarding proposed revocation of Use Permit No. 3321. It was noted that this hearing was continued from November 13 to allow staff to meet with the permittee, determine appropriate restrictions on their business, and prepare an agreement that would allow the Council to revoke the use permit in the event of noncompliance with the restrictions. In view of the foregoing, motion was Motion x made to authorize the Mayor to sign the All A y es subject Agreement and continue the public hearing to February 12, 1990. 2. Mayor Plummer opened the public hearing PW/SJHls to consider an increase -in the TrnspCrdr collection of fees (the "Development Mjr Brdg Fees") pursuant to the MAJOR `7e Prgrm HOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR T SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CO IDOR (the "Fee Program") to apply only to new development. Report rom Public Works Department. Letter fro Alan L. Blum stating there is a provis n that arterials or ,££ramps mus be put to a vote of the electorate. The Public works irector summarized the staff report, poin ng out that when the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transporta— tion Corridor Develop Fee Program was adopted by the Board o Supervisors and by the Cities which were ember agencies 'ad in 1985, the costs were b on very rough preliminary cost esti tes Volume 43 — Page 476 T� ,2 d e 8"Y OFN�1AIPORT ® Q+Gt a• COUNCIL MEMBERS ,k y C-% REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING G�Z�' G t TIME: 7 00 P.M. Chambers 'A ' DATE: February 12, 1990 Present Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes Representatives of COMCAST CABLEVISIO9 presented Council Member Cox with the 4th Annual Diamond Award and Plaque in recognition of his community talk show "The Big, The Bad, and The Beautiful." xI xIxIxIxlxlxIA. -wuL CALL. MINUTES x x B. Reading of tea of Meeting of roved January 22, 1940, waived, app as written, and order e ed. C. Reading in full of all ordinances resolutions under consideration was waived, and City Cleric was directed to read by titles only. D. BEARINGS: 1. Mayor Plummer opened the continued public hearing and City Council REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT NO. 3321 for failure to comply with specific Conditions of Approval of said use permit, being a request of NANCY AND ROBERT CLARK (NEWPORT SOUND WAVES) to permit the establishment -of a retail sales facility specializing in the sale and installation of automobile accessories and auto detailing on property located at 2906 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of the highway between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue in Mariners Mile; zoned SP-5. Report from the Planning Department. Letter from Nancy Clark requesting continuance to February 26, 1990, as Attorney Ted Dean is out of the country on business until February 23. The City Manager summarized this item noting that initially the Planning Commission approved the subject application in 1988, which included approximately 22 Conditions of Approval. In 1989, the Planning Commission found that some of those Conditions of Approval had not been met, and therefore, recommended at the November �13, 1989 City Council meeting that the subject use permit be revolted. At that time, the City Council voted to; continue the matter to its meeting of November 27, 1989, so as to allow additional time for staff to meet with the applicants, determine appropriate restrictions on the business, and prepare an agreement that would allow the Council to revoke the use permit in Volume 44 - Page 35 UI.R .9321... Npt SQq%i4 Waves (88)— C enc,""A Motion All Ayes 4 � (`�,IT'Y ' OF NEWPORT CH MINUTES \N\* February 12, 1990 the event of noncompliance with the restrictions. On November 27, 1989, the City Council authorized the subject agreement, and continued the public hearing for the revocation of Use Permit No. 3321 to its meeting of February 12, 1990. The restrictions of the agreement are set forth in the letter agreement signed by Nancy Clark and included as an attachment to the Planning Commission staff report, dated January 4, 1990. In accordance with paragraph "H" of said agreement, Newport Sound Waves was required to submit an application to amend Use Permit No. 3321 on or before December 8, 1989, and upon approval, diligently pursue compliance with all conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on review or appeal. The Planning Commission, on January 4, 1990, approved the amended use permit and recommended its approval to the City Council. In response to question raised by Council Member Hart as to whether or not the applicants are actually complying with all the Conditions of Approval, the Planning Director indicated that to the best of his knowledge, the applicants have overcome the problems they were having in complying with the initial use permit, and have indicated to staff they intend to comply with all the Conditions of Approval imposed with the amended use permit. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. x Motion was made to overrule_the original Planning Commission recommendation to revoke subject use permit and find that the operation is now, in substantial con ormance with Cifj- regulations. 2. Mayor Plummer opened the public hearing PCA 699 regarding PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT Irvine NO. 699 - A request of IRVINE RETAIL Retail PROPERTIES COMPANY to amend the Fashion Prop Co Island Planned Community Development 494) Plan so as to allow seven entry marker signs located within the ring created by Newport Center Drive in Newport Center. Report from the Planning Department. The City Manager summarized the report t noting the applicant proposes to retain en entry markers utilized for the reop ing ceremonies of the remodeled Fashion land Shopping Center. The r a Volume 44 - Page 6 a