Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/1994CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: ♦_______ c InQA MINUTES 3 JWIUdAY V, 177' ROLL CALL R%TDEX Present * * * All Commissioners were present. (Commissioner Pomeroy arrived at 7:35 p.m. and Commissioner DiSano arrived at 7:45 p.m.) x x x EX-OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager John Douglas, Principal Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x x Minutes of December 9. 1993 Minute of Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the December 9, 1993, 12/9/9 Ayes * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain Absent * * x x x Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non- agenda items. x x x Postin of the en a: Posting of the Ames Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, December 31, 1993, in front of City Hall. x x x 3 4 corm IISSIONERS 'O MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r.........., c inQA ROLL CALL INDEX Request for Continuance: Request for Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicant, Tily B. Inc. dba Mirage of Continuan Newport, has requested that Item No. 5, Use Permit No. 1727 (Amended), regarding property located at 4248 Martingale Way, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 20, 1994. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 5, Use Ayes * Permit No. 1727 (Amended) to the Planning Commission meeting Absent * of January 20, 1994. MOTION CARRIED. s•s Street Name Change (Public Hearing) item No.l street Name Request to consider a street name change from "Alvarado Street' to "Viva Avenue." Change LOCATION: Alvarado Street, located between Montero Approved Avenue and Alvarado Place, on the Balboa Peninsula. APPLICANTS: Alvarado Place Property Owners, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to a letter addressed to the Planning Commission, dated January 5, 1994, from Fred Thompson suggesting that the street name be changed from "Alvarado Street" to "Plummer Street'. Mr. Hewicker indicated that the City has no objections to change "Alvarado Street' to "Viva Avenue" or 'Plummer Street'. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford regarding previously suggested'Eldorado Street', William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained to the applicants that staff would not pursue the previously suggested street name to 'Eldorado Street' inasmuch as it is too similar to Alvarado Street. -2- 4 4 u IfTFTli�i1 R CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH J 6 1994 anuary , ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Barbara Naphen, daughter of the property owner of 325 Montero Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that 325 Alvarado Street goes through to 326 Montero Avenue. She suggested that the applicants change Alvarado Place instead of Alvarado Street, inasmuch as Alvarado Street extends for more blocks than Alvarado Place. Mr. Laycock explained that there is only one lot with access on Alvarado Street and there would be many more properties involved if Alvarado Place would be changed. He further explained that all properties abutting Alvarado Street with the exception of 307 Alvarado Street also front on either Alvarado Place, Montero Avenue, East Edgewater Avenue, East Bay Avenue, East Balboa Boulevard, or East Ocean Front. Discussion ensued regarding the residences that use Alvarado Street as an address; however, according to City records, the only Building Department records are provided for property located at 307 Alvarado Street. Ms. Naphen objected to the proposed street name "Viva Avenue ". Ms. Nicky Naphen appeared before the Planning Commission to state that fewer street name signs would be changed if Alvarado Place would be renamed instead of Alvarado Street. In response to a question posed by Ms. Barbara Naphen, Chairman Merrill explained that the residences that use Alvarado Street as an address have chosen to do so by installing mail boxes at the rear of the properties. The only official City address is 307 Alvarado Street. Ms. Margaret Hamilton, 216 East Ocean Front, appeared before he Planning Commission. She expressed her objection to changing the street name to "Viva Avenue" inasmuch as the name does not go with the continuity of the adjacent street names. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Hamilton agreed with the street name change to Plummer Street. James Hamilton, 216 East Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission to object to the street name "Viva Avenue ". -3- COMMISSIONERS i MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH iannary fi 100d ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hamilton explained that he does not object to a street name change, just the street name "Viva Avenue ". Ms. Velma Rickets, property owner at the corner of East Bay Avenue and Alvarado Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Rickets explained the confusion that is caused by the similarity of the street names of Alvarado Place and Alvarado Street. She said that Alvarado Street should be changed inasmuch as the street is also considered as an alley. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Rickets stated that 22 addresses would be affected if the Alvarado Place street name would be changed, as opposed to only a few residences on Alvarado Street. Ms. Rickets suggested that Alvarado Street be changed to Verano Street inasmuch as the street name would correspond with the neighboring streets. Ms. Loretta Belcher, 307 Alvarado Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. She explained that her street number is the same as the legal address of 307 Alvarado Street, and the confusion has caused many problems for the residents. Some of the tenants that use Alvarado Street as an address have also expressed their concerns to her regarding the similar street names. Ms. Belcher stated that Paul Medina, the property owner of 307 Alvarado Street, suggested Viva Avenue because "Viva" is his wife's name. Mr. Paul Medina, 307 Alvarado Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the foregoing comments and his support of the street name "Viva Avenue ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. * Motion was made to change the street name from "Alvarado motion Street" to 'Plummer Way". -4- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH J61LL01 �' V, 1JJT ROLL CALL INDEX Substitute Substitute motion was made to change the street name from Motion * "Alvarado Street" to "Viva Way ". Commissioner Edwards supported the substitute motion and he determined that the street name Viva Way would continue from Edgewater Avenue to East Ocean Front. All Ayes Substitute motion was voted on to change the street name to Viva - Way. MOTION CARRIED. s s • Site Plan Review No. 6 Item No. Request to approve a Site Plan Review so as to allow the sPR 68 construction of a 110,600 square foot mini- storage facility and ' related dwelling unit for the owner /manager on property located Approved in the North Ford Planned Community. CATION: Lot 6, Tract No. 6680, located at 1177 Camelback Street, on the northwesterly corner of Camelback Street and Bison Avenue, in the North Ford /San Diego Creek Planned Community. ONE: P -C APPLICANT. The Dahn Corporation, Irvine OWNER: Belcourt Medical Partners, Laguna Hills Commissioner Ridgeway addressed the Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 1993, and the discussion concerning the project during the General Plan Amendment No. 93 -3(B), Amendment No. 790, and Traffic Study No. 91, public hearing. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and ' Mr. Rush Hill, architect for the project, appeared before the -5- • 4 I MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Jauuaiy V, a .77r ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Hill concurred with most of the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". He indicated that the applicant discussed Condition No. 4, Exhibit "A", regarding the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation system, and Condition No. 6, Exhibit "A ", regarding the security gate at the entrance, with the City Traffic Engineer and the Fire Department and it was determined that the proposed plan meets the required conditions. In reference to Condition No. 17, Exhibit "A ", stating That the ours of operation of the mini- storage facility shall be limited between the hours of 7.00 a.m. and 8:00 .m., Mr. Hill indicated that the condition would restrict the operation during certain times of the year and the applicant has requested that the condition be modified for seasonal adjustments. He suggested that the condition be amended to state that the 1 ours of operation shall be between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. daily. Discussion ensued between the applicant, the Commission, and staff regarding the applicant's request to change the hours of operation. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford and Chairman Merrill with regard to the roofing material, Mr. Hill stated that the flat roof would be constructed with pea - gravel material to comply with The Irvine Company's requirement and that skylights would also be installed on the roof. Chairman Merrill and James Hewicker, Planning Director, iscussed the traffic that would be generated by the project. In response, to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hill replied that the only access to the project would be on amelback Street at the northern end of the property. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public erring was closed at this time. tion Motion was made and voted on to approve Site Plan Review No. -6- 0 4 00 � a "A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES rnnumy o, iyyY ROLL CALL INDEX 68 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and to modify Condition No. 17 stating that the hours of operation shall be between the hours of 6:00 am. and 10:00 pm. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the amended hours would allow maximum flexibility and the hours would not impact the community. All Ayes MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed action is part of the project evaluated in the Negative Declaration prepared for GPA 93- 3(B) /Amendment No. 790 /Traffic Study No. 91 and approved by the Planning Commission on December 9, 1993. That Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission and was reviewed and considered prior to recommending approval of the project. 2. That development of the subject property in the North Ford /San Diego Creek Planned Community District will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan objectives and policies. 3. That the value of property is protected by preventing development characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features,. open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. That benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement, acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site • location characteristics of the proposed development. -7- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Janu 6 1994 arY , ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That unique site characteristics are protected in order to ensure that the community may benefit from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean, to preserve and stabilize the natural terrain, and to protect the environmental resources of the City. 6. That the proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards for the North Ford /San Diego Creek Planned Community District, as recommended for City Council approval by the Planning Commission in Amendment No. 790. 7. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the 8. That the development has been designed to maximize protection of public views from Bison Avenue. 9. That there are no known archeological or historical resources on -site. 10. That there are no environmentally sensitive areas on -site. 11. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 12. That the proposed project will meet City noise standards for residential development. 13. The site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas and pedestrian and vehicular access are functional in that the project has been designed so as to limit vehicular access to the site from Camelback Street. 14. The development is consistent with surrounding land uses and with the goals and policies of the General Plan as -8- • 4 L ufTi[ MTlr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i _ C 1(llA rauuaiy o, i»Y ROLL CALL INDEX recommended for City Council approval by the Planning Commission in GPA 93 -3(B). 15. Mechanical equipment and trash areas will be concealed from view. 16. 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. 17. That public improvements may be required of a developer . per Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code. 18. The approval of the proposed project 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. 19. That Site Plan Review No. 68 will not become effective unless and until General Plan Amendment 93 -3(B), Traffic Study No. 91 and Amendment No. 790 are approved by the City Council. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development. shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a -9- • COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r.._...._. c IMA • 6. That the security gate at the entrance shall be designed to provide a turnaround prior to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. 7. That the displaced and cracked sections of sidewalk be reconstructed along the Bison Avenue and Camelback Street frontages; that the displaced curb access ramp at the corner of Camelback Street and Bison Avenue be reconstructed; and that the shrubs along the Bison Avenue frontage be trimmed back to two (2) feet behind the sidewalk unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer -10- ROLL CALL I INDEX building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That the intersection of the private drive and Camelback Street be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls, the monument sign and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line as defined by City Standard 110-L shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 9. That the Water Capital Improvement fee be paid. 10. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Camelback Street or Bison Avenue rights -of -way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 11. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 13. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designed 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. 14. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. Landscaping shall be provided along both street frontages to provide adequate screening from the adjacent residential uses. The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with . the prepared plans. -11- COA MISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES .lannary fi_ 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 15. That the project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent streets and uses. 16. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 17. That the hours of operation of the mini- storage facility shall be limited between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 18. That all conditions of approval of Amendment No. 790 and Traffic Study No. 91 and related mitigation measures of the environmental document shall be fulfilled. 19. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 K of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. . x x s A Site Plan Review No . 32 (Amended) (Public Hearin Item No.3 Request to amend a previously approved Site Plan Review which SPR 32 (A) permitted the construction of the 325 room Four Seasons Hotel in TS 92 Newport Center. The proposal also included: the establishment of an off -street parking requirement based upon a demonstrated Approved formula; the acceptance of two off -site parking agreements; and a edification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact ar spaces, tandem parking spaces with valet service and two versized wall signs. The proposed amendment includes a request o construct a 9,000± sq. ft. ballroom/banquet facility with ciliary uses to include a kitchen, restrooms, storage and pre - ction areas. A 3,600± sq.ft. lawn area for various functions is lso proposed; an additional off -site parking agreement for the equired parking spaces in an adjoining parking structure located it 630. Newport Center Drive; and the acceptance of an nviranmental document. • AND -12- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T�minr A YOGA ROLL CALL INDEX B. Traffic Study No. 92 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of a 9,000± square foot ballroom/banquet facility with ancillary uses to include a kitchen, restrooms, a storage area, pre - function areas, and a 3,600± sq.ft. lawn area to be used for outdoor functions. LOCATION: Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Parcel Map 19/13 -15, (Resubdivision No. 752) located at 690 Newport Center Drive, on the northeasterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Santa Cruz Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: APF -H ' APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Edwards requested that James Hewicker, Planning Director, clarify the suggested changes to conditions of approval for Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended), that were distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing. Mr. Hewicker addressed suggested revised Condition No. 5 egarding the off -site parking agreement. He explained that the suggested condition would allow the applicant to obtain the City Council's approval of an off -site parking agreement within 120 days of the issuance of the first building permit for the proposed hotel expansion. Mr. Hewicker recommended that original Condition No. 13 stating That prior to occupancy, the applicant shall deposit $50,000.00 owards the cost of installing a traffic signal at the intersection of ewport Center Drive and Center Drive, be deleted. The suggested new condition states That the collection of Fair Share Traffic Contribution fees for the use of the lawn area adjacent to the -13- �y�o��•p'PO�`�"o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Jan 6 1994 uary , ROLL CALL INDEX roposed ballroom shall be deferred by the City pending the cheduling of the first use of this area for an outdoor event. Mr. ewicker explained the applicant and staff discussed the Fair hare Fee contribution for the lawn area, and the applicant ndicated that it was not certain that the lawn would be used for utdoor functions. It was determined that the collection of the air Share Fee would be postponed until after the first event had een scheduled. uggested revised Condition No. 15 addresses advertising in the U s shelter located on private property adjacent to the hotel on ewport Center Drive, and the condition would allow advertising ithin Newport Center and Fashion Island. uggested revised Condition No. 18 addresses the expiration of the roposed Site Plan Review. The Irvine Company requested that he condition be modified to allow for a 36 month period. response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover regarding he aforementioned Condition No. 13, Mr. Hewicker explained at if a traffic signal is installed at the intersection of Newport enter Drive and Center Drive, it would be installed at the City's xpense. Mr. Hewicker further replied that the Fair Share Traffic ontribution fee is based on the cost per trip and the number of ps. e public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Tom Redwitz appeared before the Planning Commission on ehalf of the applicant. He concurred .with the findings and onditions in Exhibit "X as revised by staff.. The proposal would ncrease the occupancy rate of the hotel up to approximately 0,000 room nights per year, and it would increase the bed tax to he City to approximately $150,000 per year and it would also ncrease the sales tax to approximately $30,000 per year. response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway egarding the disparity of the aforementioned suggested Conditions o. 5 and No. 18, Mr. Redwitz and Mr. Bill Dunlap, Vice -14- a�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES J"Ukuy U, 177Y ROLL CALL INDEX President of Development for The Irvine Company explained that the economic investment will be considered after The Irvine Company reviews the conditions on the approval, and the bids that will be submitted on the proposed project. Commissioner Glover suggested a pathway be constructed between the Hotel and Neiman Marcus. Mr. Redwitz replied that the suggestion would be reviewed and he indicated that the Hotel's expansion would affect the sales tax revenue throughout the City. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding the original Condition No. 13 and the suggested Condition No. 13, Mr. Hewicker replied that the $50,000.00 for the installation of a traffic signal would not have been included in the air Share Fee. If it is ultimately determined that the Hotel would use the lawn area for functional purposes in conjunction with the ballroom the Fair Share Fee will be collected. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with regard to the traffic signal at Newport Center Drive and Center Drive, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that it is not normally City policy to construct traffic signals at private driveways inasmuch as it is the property owner's responsibility if it is required at the time of the original development. The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that the intersection does not meet normal traffic signal warrants that are established by the State of California. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Webb replied that members of the public in the general vicinity equested that the City install a traffic signal at the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Center Drive; however, the City Council will determine if the use of public funds is on their priority list to install a traffic signal at the intersection. 10 -15- I Ak 0%1 VNN \% MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH J 6 1994 anuary , ROLL CALL WDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that when a condition is imposed on a development it is necessary to indicate that there is a nexus between the impacts caused by the development. It was determined that the development would not impact the intersection to the extent that a traffic signal would be required. Mr. Webb explained that when the Four Seasons Hotel was originally approved a traffic signal was originally conditioned at that location if traffic signal warrants were met within five years. The warrants were not met within five years and so the bonds were released. notion Motion was made and voted on to approve Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) and Traffic Study No. 92 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", as revised. Commissioner Glover stated Ayes that it has been determined that there is not a nexus and that the City should pay for the traffic signal if it is necessary. MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and imposing the following mitigation measures: Findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3. 2. On the basis of the analysis set for in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be • compromised by the project. -16- COMUSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 7.,.,. -, A 100A ROLL CALL INDEX 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. S. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 6. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimise light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 2. Use of the function lawn area shall be prohibited between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. weekdays, until such time as the northbound Jamboree Road on -ramp to the SR -73 is constructed. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project will comply with Council Policies K -S and K -6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. -17- COrMUSSIONERS 151 l► tell lla?.9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ] 6 1994 anuary , ROLL CALL INDEX B. Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amende ) Fin ' 1. That development of the subject property will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan objectives and policies. 2. That the value of property is protected by preventing development characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. 3. That benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement, acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of the proposed development. 4. That the site does not contain any unique landforms such as coastal bluffs. 5. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. 6. That there are no unique site characteristics or environmentally sensitive areas on -site which should be protected. 7. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. -18- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i 1►iTi TITIPQ K iooe ROLL CALL INDEX 8. The development is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. 9. That there are no archeological or historical resources on- site. 10. 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. 11. That public improvements may be required of the applicant per Section 19.08.1020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 12. The project will substantially comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 13. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 14. That the proposed off -site parking area is so located as to be useful in conjunction with the proposed ballroom and function lawn. 15. That the parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 16. That the off -site parking lot and the building site are in the same ownership, and the owner is entitled to the immediate possession and use thereof. 17. That the owner and the City, upon the approval of City Council, will execute a written instrument or instruments, . approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, -19- 4 COMNIISSIONERS I% wtt: Vph�%-\NwMuL \z(\b) \P. MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tom.......... A 100A � J0.11{ip.a' V, 1l Jt ROLL CALL INDEX providing for the maintenance of the required off - street parking on such lot for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site. Such instruments will be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Planning Development. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Site Plan Review No. 32, Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) as approved on December 6, 1984 and August 8, 1991 and Use Permit No. 3119 shall be fulfilled. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That the applicant shall obtain the City Councirs approval of an off -site parking arrangement which provides for 270 parking spaces within the parking structure located at 630 Newport Center Drive within 120 days of the issuance of the first building permit for the proposed hotel expansion. 6. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the off -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 the intersection of the private street and drives be . designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles -20- d b 1\41, t PNP \2 R*\0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T........'.. C 1 nnA' � JfLL1YQl� V, 1»T ROLL CALL INDEX per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty- four inches in height. 8. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Public Streets and adjoining properties. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. That the Edison transformer serving the site be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L. 11. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 12. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall deposit $100,000.00 for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Santa Cruz Drive and San Clemente Drive /Center Drive. 13. That the collection of Fair Share Traffic Contribution fees for the use of the lawn area adjacent to the proposed ballroom shall be deferred by the City pending the scheduling of the first use of this area for an outdoor event. 14. That the bus shelter on San Joaquin Hills Road east of Santa Cruz Drive shall be removed. (No buses travel this section of San Joaquin Hills Road) -21- 1 0041\tnlw�o ��� MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T ! 1MI rauuwy U, 1774 ROLL CALL INDEX 15. Advertising in the bus shelter adjacent to the hotel, on Newport Center Drive, shall be restricted to businesses located within Newport Center and Fashion Island. 16. Unless otherwise approved, a parking plan showing the tandem and compact spaces and the valet operation area shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for review. 17. That the condition of Traffic Study No. 92 shall be fulfilled. 18. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 36 months from the date of approval. C. Traffic Study No. 92: Approve the Traffic Study, making • the findings listed below: Findings 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary- modified', or 'primary' street. n 'don: 1. Use of the outdoor function area shall be prohibited between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 am. weekdays until such time as the northbound Jamboree Road on -ramp to the SR -73 is constructed. • -22- �. arc d�\ MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Janu 6 1994 m7 ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3241 (Amended) Public Hearing) Item No. Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3241 permitted the sale of take -out food and beverage items in conjunction with an existing retail bakery on property located in Approved the RSC -R District. The proposed amendment is a request to amend Condition No. 3 of the existing use permit so as to allow the facility to open at 6:00 am., whereas the existing use permit only allows a 7:00 a.m. opening. LOCATION: Lot 11, Block 11, Section Four, Balboa Island, located at 220 Marine Avenue, on the easterly side of Marine Avenue, between Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue, on Balboa Island. • ZONE: RSC -R APPLICANT: Scott McVean, Newport Beach OWNER: Jax of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the letter to the Planning Commission from Ms. Jean Bain, dated December 31, 1993, expressing support of the application, and he asked if there could be an easier process to reduce the time and cost of similar applications. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that he Planning Department is considering operational changes to use permits that would not require an applicant to come back before he Planning Commission. e public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and . Scott McVean, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. -23- COMOSSIONER3 'O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL MEX Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3241 (Amended) All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit W. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. The restaurant facility is consistent with the General Plan and the Adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the proposed earlier opening hour of 6:00 am. is in keeping with the hours of the restaurant facility located at • 322 Marine Avenue recently approved by the Planning Commission. 4. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to parking, setbacks, landscaping, traffic circulation, walls, parking lot illumination and underground utilities will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the site has been developed and the structure has been in existence for many years. S. That the proposed use, as approved, does not represent an intensification of use that will result in an increased parking demand. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3241 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. -24- 4 1 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T ____.___ L 1AAA JaRuLL ' u, 1774 ROLL CALL INDEX NDM N : 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan except as noted below. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3241 shall remain in effect. 3. That restaurant development standards pertaining to parking, setbacks, landscaping, traffic circulation, walls, parking lot illumination, and underground utilities shall be waived. 4. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold on the premises unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment ' to the use permit. 5. That dancing shall not be permitted in conjunction with this restaurant unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 6. That live entertainment shall not be permitted in the restaurant unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 7. That all exterior lighting and signs shall conform to Chapters 20.06 and 20.72 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. That the interior customer service area shall be limited to a maximum of 85 sq ft. within the facility, and that no seating shall be permitted within the facility unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 9. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to implementation of this approval- -25- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �auuary o, ly" ROLL CALL MEX 10. That the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. 11. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 10. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • Use Permit No 1727 (Amende )(Public Hearin¢) Item No. Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1727A permitted the establishment of a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and established a parking requirement based on one Continue parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area ". The to 1/20/94 1/ proposed amendment includes a request to change the operational characteristics of the restaurant so as to permit adult live entertainment as well as patron dancing to prerecorded music and live entertainment. The proposal also includes a request to establish a 24 hour operation where the permitted hours of operation are from 7:00 am. to 2:00 a.m. daily. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 45 -23 (Resubdivision No. 347) located at 4248 Martingale Way, westerly of MacArthur Boulevard, between Martingale Way and Dolphin- Striker Way, in the Newport Place Planned Community. • ZONE: P -C -26- COPWD IISSIONERS P`IQ 0 11 * ��10NINMI .o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES rnnnnr 6 100A ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANT: Tily B. Inc., dba Mirage of Newport, Santa Ana OWNER: Nuccio Reality and Investment Co., Corona del Mar James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the attorney for the applicant has requested a continuance of this item to the Planning Commission meeting of January 20, 1994, so as to provide additional time to resolve issues regarding parking associated with the proposed project which may affect the design. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 1727 Ayes * * * * (Amended) to the Planning Commission meeting of January 20, Absent 1994. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 791 (Public Hearing) stem No. Request to consider an amendment of a portion of Districting A791 Map No. 2 so as to establish a 10 foot front yard setback on the lots located on the southeasterly side of 47th Street between River Approved Avenue and Neptune Avenue in West Newport, where the Municipal Code currently requires a 20 foot front yard setback. LOCATION: Lots 1 -8, Block 46, River Section, located at 118 -146 47th Street, consisting of all the properties on the southeasterly side of 47th Street, between Neptune Avenue and River Avenue, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Commissioner Edwards requested a clarification of the letters from William Conroy and Alice T. C. Donovan, property owners -27- L �9fpf- t0%\�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i ►f�iiLTLIN5P n.....,..... c inne r naauua�r v, a�ir ROLL CALL INDEX of 126 - 47th Street, and Marianne Tassio, property owner of 122 - 47th Street, addressed to the Planning Commission objecting to the subject application William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, commented that the property owners of 126 - 47th Street and 122 -47th Street expressed their opposition to the subject application. However, Mr. Laycock referred to the property located at 122 -47th Street wherein he explained that on February 6, 1974, the Modifications Committee approved Modification No. 766 which allowed a nonconforming dwelling unit to maintain a front yard setback of 16 feet 8 inches to William Tassio whereas the Zoning Code required a 20 foot setback so as to allow a second dwelling unit on the second floor. The original dwelling unit encroached 3 feet 4 inches into the required 20 foot front yard setback. On October 10, 1991, Modification No. 3630 was applied for by William Conroy and was approved on property located at 126 - 47th Street. The approval permitted additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling that encroached 3 feet into the required 20 foot setback, and a new entry was allowed to encroach 7 feet into the required front yard setback. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dave Archie, 138 - 47th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. He stated that the intention is to try to get more owner /occupied duplexes and single family dwellings on the street for the purpose of raising families. He explained that 47th Street is the only street in the neighborhood that has a 20 foot front yard setback whereas the adjoining streets have 10 foot front yard setbacks. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano regarding the list of property owners, Mr. Archie explained that there are only two houses that are owner /occupied on 47th Street. He pointed out that Bill and Michelle Conroy own the property at 126 - 47th Street; however, they do not reside on the premises because they did not feel the area was appropriate to raise a family. -28- COMMISSIONERS 4� c�c�M �L1101\N %kO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES c inne 7 J 41LLQ1�' V, 1JJT ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Archie explained that the noise level has been reduced because of the City's Ordinance to contact the Police Department and the property owners regarding noise disturbances. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to recommend adoption of All Ayes Amendment No. 791 [Resolution No. 1344] to the City Council. Res. 134 MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 789 (Public Hearing) Item No. A789 • Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, so as to revise various Sections of the Zoning Code which limit the allowable gross floor area in the Approved Residential Districts, including those within Specific Plan Areas. The proposed amendment involves changing the calculation of gross floor areas to include those portions of residential buildings or related structures which span more than one floor and which are located over uninhabitable areas. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mrs. Diane Peets, 327 Coral Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Peets requested that the Commission not take action on the subject application, and to consider rezoning the residential portions of Balboa Island from R -1.5 Zoning to a R -1.75 Zoning District. She explained that the majority of the structures on Balboa Island are constructed with two stories at the rear of the properties to accommodate either an apartment or additional height above the garage. She opined that it is not reasonable that the property owners cannot utilize the . area above the garage when it would not affect anyone else. -29- 7 • ���y � o� 1 �' p ' HO � O�o 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES io n„o,w F 1004 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy explained that the issue is that a property owner would build a unit with the idea to convert the space above a garage for additional floor area at a later date. The intent of the Floor Area Ordinance is to prohibit the unit from being constructed so as to reduce the bulk. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the proposed Ordinance states that For purposes of calculating the allowable gross floor area the floor area devoted to portions of buildings located over uninhabitable areas which span more than one floor and measure more than 14 feet 6 inches from finished floor to the ceiling above finished floor, shall be considered to occupy two floor levels; therefore, it would be difficult to subdivide the area into two livable levels. In response to questions posed by Mrs. Peets, Mr. Hewicker explained that Balboa Island is the only area in the City that has the R -1.5 Zoning, and the zoning was designed to establish a Floor Area Ratio of 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. Mr. Hewicker advised that Zoning Amendments can be initiated by the Planning Commission; the City Council, or the property owner. He suggested that the Balboa Island Improvement Association contact their City Councilperson to discuss amending the Zoning Code. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to recommend adoption of Amendment No. 789 [Resolution No. 1345] to the City Council. Res 1341. Chairman Merrill stated that he would not support the motion inasmuch as it does not reduce bulk and mass. Commissioner Gifford stated that she would support the motion. A portion of the problem has been solved with the space over garages; however, property owners will build lofts over other areas of the structure. She stated that the original proposal that staff -30- \41 PRONO \t*\%0 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L InnA JwluLL y V, 177Y ROLL CALL INDEX submitted to the Planning Commission at its meeting of November 18, 1993, addressed her concerns. Commissioner Glover stated that the proposed Amendment provides the older area of the City with space that is allowed in Planned Communities. Commissioner Edwards concurred with Commissioner Gifford's aforementioned statements. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support the motion. In reference to the Amendment as submitted to the Commission at its November meeting, be stated that to restrict volume area arbitrarily over habitable areas because someone may occasionally construct an illegal addition makes no sense, and a design problem would be created. * * * * * * Motion was voted on to approve Amendment No. 789 [Resolution p Ns No * No. 13451. MOTION CARRIED. Discussion Items: Discussior Items Amendment No. 792 A792 Request to consider the initiation of an amendment to a portion of Districting Map No. 3 so as to establish a 20 foot front yard set for ph 2/10/99 setback adjacent to the Rivo Alto Channel, for all of the properties within Blocks 433 and 434, Canal Section, which currently require a 35 foot front yard setback. LOCATION: Lots 1 -5, Block 433 and Lots 1 -7, Block 434, Canal Section, located at 405 -409 Clubhouse Avenue and 3311 -3413 Finley Avenue, on the northeasterly side of the Rivo Alto Channel between 35th Street and Clubhouse Avenue, in West Newport. -31- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UU \NN U.....,.., f. 1 QOA ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANTS: Clubhouse Avenue and Finley Avenue Property Owners, Newport Beach Motion Motion was made and voted on to set Amendment No. 792 for All ayes public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1994. MOTION CARRIED. Request of William P. Ficker for interpretation of Section Port 20.83.040 of the Newport Beach Munipi !al Code. Nonconformine Theatre Uses, as it pertains to the proposed remodel and refurbishment of Ficker the Port Theatre located at 2905 East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Commissioner Edwards opined that the refurbishment of the Port Theatre is an intensification of use despite the fact that he may favor the intensification. He commented that how the Commission acts on the issue may have an affect on other requests for interpretation and how other applicants may act regarding intensification. Commissioner Ridgeway concurred. He supports the proposal; however, he expressed his concerns regarding the change in operational characteristics of the use. Commissioner Glover addressed the compatibility of the Corona del Mar community. She opined that the request is not an intensification of use, she supported the plan, and that the theater is making an effort to invest in the City. Commissioner Pomeroy opined that the proposal is not an intensification of use on the basis that there would not be any reduction in parking and the movie schedules of the theaters would be alternated which would eliminate most of the problems. Commissioner Pomeroy and James Hewicker, Planning Director, discussed the reduction in the number of seats and the affect the . reduction would have on parking. -32- 14 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T .._........ c I nne Janumy V, AM ROLL CALL INDEX In response to comments by Commissioner Gifford regarding the eater schedule, Mr. Bill Ficker, architect and planner for the proposed project, appeared before the Planning Commission. He distributed a chart dated January 5, 1994, showing a projected eating summary using the Edwards Newport Theatre schedule in Newport Center. The chart indicates that a potential of 12 -1/2 ours of 930 people could occupy the existing theater; however, e potential that could occupy the requested three screen theater or 8 hours would be 800 people. Mr. Ficker and Commissioner Gifford discussed the operating hours of the theater schedule. Commissioner Gifford opined that it would indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the hours of operation or a change in the operational characteristics. In response to comments by Mr. Ficker regarding the number of ' showings that are presently allowed, Robin Flory, Assistant City ttorney, explained that the theater's rights to the number of daily showings would be based on the schedule of the current operation. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Ficker replied that the Police Department has not received any complaints from the residents regarding theater parking. ommissioner Ridgeway and Mr. Hewicker discussed the eduction of the number of seats and if parking is a proper subject or the Commission to review. Ms. Flory explained that under the rovisions of the Municipal Code if there is a determination that e addition of the three screens is an intensification of the use en it would be a change in the operational characteristics of the eater and, therefore, it would require a use permit for all urposes, including parking. If the theater did not add extra Greens and if it wanted to change the showings and the schedule aused a public nuisance, then the City Attorney's Office would top the operation because it became an intensification of use. ne issue that may come before the Commission would be to etermine if daily late showings would be an intensification of use ver the current schedule. -33- • 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T- .-..�— C InnA ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Gifford and Ms. Flory discussed the impact that a daytime schedule would have on the operation of the theater and if there would be an intensification of use. Mr. Ficker addressed his concerns regarding the limitations that nonconforming uses have, i.e. the theater does not intend to increase the number of patrons, and the number of seats would be reduced. Motion * Commissioner Edwards made a motion to continue the Discussion Item and to give Mr. Ficker direction to come back to the Commission with the hours that the theater is presently operating under and the proposed theater schedule. He determined that the numbers may be reduced; however, there may be an increase in utilization as the result of a change in operation. Mr. Ficker stated that he would like to be informed of the limitations. Ms. Flory commented that the limitations are whatever the established use is, i.e. what is the established use of the operating hours of the theater and that information would provide the City with what it would consider the "grandfathered" hours of operation. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the owner of the theater provide a letter to the Commission indicating the hours of peration. Commissioner Gifford concurred that an increase in the operating ours would indicate an intensification of use. In response to statements by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Flory xplained that one of the determinations on the intensification of use is a change in operational characteristics, i.e. is three screens change in operational characteristics and does that result in an intensification of use. In response to Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Flory stated that to . consider the three screens is considering the number of seats and -34- COMMISSIONERS c���o�tNNL�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Tnniinr A IOOd ROLL CALL INDEX the theater is stating that there would be a reduction in the number of seats. The fact that it would become more popular and all of the seats would be filled because there are three screens would not be a basis for determining intensification. In response to comments by Chairman Merrill regarding "grandfathered" rights, Ms. Flory explained that the historical operating hours would be over a period of years. Commissioner Glover suggested that Mr. Ficker and the City Attorney's Office work out the theater's hours of operation. substitut Commissioner DiSano made a substitute motion that there is Motion * sufficient information to determine that the operation would not be an intensification of use. He addressed Section 20.83.020 H, Change in Operational Characteristics as stated in the staff report: ' (1) Any substantial increase in the hours of operation; (2) The introduction of live entertainment or dancing; (3) A loss of on -site or off -site parking spaces for a period of ninety (90) days or more which would reduce available parking below the number currently required by provisions of this Title; (4) The introduction of, or an increase in, the number of valet, tandem, or compact parking spaces. Commissioner DiSano determined that the foregoing do not indicate that the proposed operation would be an intensification of use inasmuch as no extended hours of operation are proposed. He advised that if a pre - existing nonconforming use does something that does not fit the nonconforming use, the City Attorney's Office can officially take legal action. Chairman Merrill considered the theater schedule and intensification of use. Commissioner Gifford stated that not enough information has been provided to the Commission to know if there would be a substantial increase in the hours of operation until the proposed schedule would be compared with the existing hours of operation. She referred to the aforementioned chart that was submitted by . r. Ficker indicating the number of patrons that are projected -35- • 4 4 COBOUSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January o, iyyw ROLL CALL INDEX under a specific time frame. She did not support the substitute motion. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the substitute motion be amended to state that there would not be a substantial change in operating hours. Mr. Ficker stated that he would not be in a position to agree with the foregoing amendment to the motion inasmuch as it would be difficult to provide exact showing times; however, he concurred with Commissioner Ridgeway that a range of operating times could feasibly be provided as indicated in the chart. Mr. Ficker concurred with Commissioner Pomeroy that the operational characteristics would not be different than the existing operation. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Ficker agreed to submit the foregoing chart as part of the record. Commissioner Edwards stated that he would not support the substitute motion. He supported his original motion to continue the item until the theater submits the exact operational characteristics: i.e. he wants to know what he is voting on, and the operational characteristics may not be what Mr. Ficker thinks and the theater may not be able to operate under the conditions that they think they may be able to operate under. Commissioner DiSano stated that the applicant has requested an interpretation which would allow the nonconforming use to ominue to operate. There is an effective and appropriate theater perating which is appropriate to the City. In reference to the conomics, he stated that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to put the theater in a position where it has to be pproved by the people in the surrounding community with the ecuring of a use permit, with the potential that the entire project ould not go forward. Ayes * * * * ubstitute motion was voted on to overrule the staffs Noes - * * interpretation that the proposed changes do not constitute an crease of a nonconforming use. MOTION CARRIED. -36- 4 4 e� '00� Rrro�'rc�oop��'s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH J MINUTES anuary 6, 1,974 ROLL CALL WDEX s s s ADDITIONAL B Add l 1 Busines8 Motion Motion was made and voted on to excuse Chairman Merrill and All Ayes Commissioner Ridgeway from the Planning Commission meeting Merrill/ of January 20, 1994. Chairman Merrill also requested an excused Ridgeway Excused absence from the February 10, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 9:55 p.m. Adjourn ■ s s ' ANNE K GIFFORD, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -37-