Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/1988COMMISSIONERS RaTC Presen aAy 9y90 oy �� �O REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: February 4, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ALL INDEX t * * * * * All Commissioners were present. at it it EX- OFFICIO OFFICER PRESENT: Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of January 21. 1988: Minutes of x Motion was made and voted on to approve the January 21, 1 -21 -88 es 1988, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that Agenda the Agenda was posted on January 29, 1988, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuances: Request William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that For ontinuanc@ the applicant, University Athletic Club, has requested that Item No. 2, Use Permit No. 1771 (Amended) in Newport Place, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1988, and that staff has recommended that Resubdivision No. 861, James C. Manning, applicant, in the Spyglass Ridge residential COMMISSIONERS o. o� q2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 R ALL INDEX area, be continued to the February 18, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion x Motion was made and voted on to. continue Item No. 2, Use Permit No. 1771 (Amended) to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1988, and Item No. 5, Resubdivision No. 861, to the Planning Commission Meeting of February All Ayes 18, 1988. MOTION CARRIED- General Plan Amendment No. 88 -1 (Discussion) Item No.l Request to initiate proposed amendments to the Newport GPA 88 -1 Beach General Plan as follows: (A)(B)(C) (D) (E) A. Westbay. A request of The Irvine Company to amend the Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements Recommend of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land to CC. Use Plan so as to change the land use designation of the Westbay site from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Recreational and Environmental Open • Space ". B. City Corporation Yard. A proposal of the City of Newport Beach to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan adding a specific area description for the City Corporation Yard (currently designated for "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities ") so as to allow a refuse re- cycling /transfer station on the site. C. Newport Harbor Art Museum. A request of the Newport Harbor Art Museum to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to change the land use designation of ten acres at the northwes- terly corner of East Coast. Highway and MacArthur Boulevard from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" in order to allow construction of a new art museum. D. 3010 and 3012 West Balboa Boulevard. Request of Daniel Ralsky and Arthur L. Bauman to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan so as to change the land use designation from "Two - Family Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial ". Also to be • considered is a request of staff to expand the area of consideration to include the property located at 3008 West Balboa Boulevard, the single remaining -2- COMMISSIONERS .p . 09 x'04 ° v�mv CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RO CALL INDEX residentially designated site fronting on West Balboa Boulevard in the subject block. E. Northwest Corner of West Balboa Boulevard and 15th Street. A request of The Gen Group to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan so as to change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi- Family Residential ". INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that staff has requested that "General Plan Amendment No. 88- l(A), Westbay, be included with the City Corporation Yard so as to proceed with said items prior to the other requested General Plan Amendments. He explained that The Irvine Company requested that the City proceed with the General Plan Amendment for the Westbay site prior to the General Plan up -date, and that staff has no objections to said request. • Commissioner Debay stated that she will abstain from voting on General Plan Amendment No. 88 -1 (E) because of a conflict of interest. Motion x Motion was made to initiate General Plan Amendment No. 88 -1 (A), Westbay, and recommend to the City Council that the proposed General Plan Amendment be initiated and staff be directed to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission. Motion voted All Ayes on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made to initiate General Plan Amendment No. 88 -1 (B), City Corporation Yard, and recommend to the City Council that the proposed General Plan Amendment be initiated and staff be directed to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission. All Ayes Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made to initiate General Plan Amendment No. 88 -1 (C) , Newport Harbor Art Museum, and recommend to the City Council that the requested General Plan Amendment be initiated with direction to staff to include it's consideration in the on -going General Plan • and Use and Circulation Element update. Commissioner Debay referred to the staff report's statement that "it may also become critical for the -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 4, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R ALL INDEX Newport Harbor Art Museum to proceed independently, in which case staff could bring that back before the Planning Commission prior to the overall General Plan update." Chairman Pers6n stated that he was pleased to be able to support the concept of the Newport Harbor Art Museum at this time. All Ayes The foregoing motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made to initiate General Plan Amendment No. 88 -1 (D), 3010 and 3012 West Balboa Boulevard, and recommend to the City Council that the requested General Plan Amendment be initiated with direction to staff to include it's consideration in the on -going General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element update. Motion was All Ayes voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion Motion was made to initiate General Plan Amendment No. 88 -1(E), Northwest Corner of West Balboa Boulevard and 15th Street, and recommend to the City Council that the • requested General Plan Amendment be initiated with direction to staff to include it's consideration in the Ayes x x K < K K on -going General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Absent x update. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 1771 (Amended)(Public Hearing) Item No.2 UP1771(A) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of an athletic club on property located in Industrial Site 3A of the Newport Continued Place Planned Community. The proposed amendment to 3 -10 -88 includes a request to allow the retention of an "as built" snack bar which includes the service of soup, salad, sandwiches and on -sale beer and wine. Said food service activity will be. limited to the members and guests of the private athletic club. LOCATION: Parcel. No. 1 of Parcel Map 75 -39 (Resubdivision No. 500) located at 1701 Quail Street, on the southwesterly side of Quail Street, southeasterly of Birch Street in the Newport Place Planned Community. • ZONE: P -C. -4- COMMISSIONERS Ask 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RONWCALL INDEX APPLICANT: University Athletic Club Ltd., Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1988. Motion x Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. All Ayes 1771 (Amended) to the March 10, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3222 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to convert an existing automobile service UP3222 station into an automobile repair facility on property located in the C -1 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 1, Block F, Tract No. 323, located at 2801 East Coast .Highway, on the southwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Goldenrod Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Stephen Gregory Cash, Encinitas OWNER: Same as applicant Mr. Stephen Cash, applicant and property owner, and Mr. Michael Pope, representing Class Action, the proposed tenant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cash stated that his major concerns are that the site be occupied, and to clean up the contaminated soils. He commented that because a long term use has not been determined that Condition No. 19 which states that ".. the driveway on East Coast Highway closest to the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway be closed in accordance with procedures of the City of Newport Beach and the California Department of Transportation ", be deleted so he would not be required to close the driveway. He suggested that the application come back to the Planning Commission in twelve months, or that the Planning Commission grant a temporary use permit to Class Action so they may occupy the facility, or that bonding be proposed for the improvements, or that the applicant submit a periodic -5- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES -,F February 4, 1988 ld �• 9N 99'�.a v F9� G�y� Dy \<r G . 9t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLTFCALL INDEX progress report. Mr. Cash further stated that he intends to ,construct a new building on the subject property in the future. In reference to Condition No. 20 which states that the auto repair facility shall not open for business until such time as cleanup of contaminated soils has commenced, Mr. Cash responded that he is eager to occupy the site, and that the permits relating to the cleanup of contaminated soils shall be issued to the contractor by the end of February. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pers6n and Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Cash replied that the tanks have been removed from the site, and he explained the cleaning process that Shell Oil Company has suggested be implemented to clean the soil. In response to Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Cash replied that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of aforementioned Conditions No. 19 and No. 20. He explained that within twelve months he will have a contract from a tenant who will occupy the site on a long term basis. . Commissioner Pomeroy referred to Condition No. 20, and he explained that the soils cleanup will not interfere with tenant occupancy, because only the start of the cleanup is required before the site is occupied. Mr. Cash maintained that the authorized agencies have slowed up the cleanup process, because of their delay in issuing permits. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the applicants' statements in reference to future uses proposed for the subject property, Mr. Cash explained that Class Action is requesting to occupy the site as a light automobile repair or mini -lube facility, and that a future request would consist of a light automobile repair facility that would blend in aesthetically with the surrounding area. Mr. Laycock explained that if the subject building would be torn down, and a new building would be constructed on the site, that any use similar to a service station or an automobile repair facility in a new building, would require a use permit that would have to be approved by the Planning Commission. He said that if an office or retail use were constructed on the site, then the new construction would require a Site Plan Review and that said application would also have to be approved by the Planning Commission. -6- COMMISSIONERS $A O�^��" o m � '� i�q.09 9 G� N�9��yJ. _ y 4� � cC f�9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 ROMbALL INDEX Mr. Michael Pope stated that Class Action will work only on German automotive products. He said that extensive automobile repair or overnight storing will require that the automobiles be moved to their Costa Mesa facility. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to Condition No. 20 regarding the cleanup of contaminated soils and debris, and he commented that the condition is fair to state that the premises cannot be occupied until the cleanup has started. In reference to Condition No. 19, Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would be agreeable to amend the condition so the applicant could. be given additional time to improve the premises before the driveway would be repaired. Motion x Motion was made to approve.Use Permit No. 3222 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Di Sano stated that if the applicant would be willing to bond to the satisfaction, of staff, that the requirements of the driveway be installed at a later date; however, he requested that Condition No. 20 not be amended inasmuch as the City should be assured that the cleanup of contaminated soils has commenced. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that staff would agree to bonding; however, staff would require a completion period. The maker of the motion suggested that the condition be amended to state that improvements shall be completed within 18 months from the date of approval of the subject use permit. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3222 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" All Ayes including amended Condition No. 19. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The proposed off - street parking will be adequate to serve the auto sales and repair facility. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 4, 1988 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL CALL INDEX 4. That existing palm trees in the planter at the rear of the alley block sight distance of those vehicles exiting the alley. 5. That the proposed project will not generate sufficient traffic to warrant two driveways. on East Coast Highway and that removal of one of the driveways will improve circulation on East Coast Highway. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3222 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plat plan except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties, from East Coast Highway, and from Goldenrod Avenue. 3. That all repair. and service activities to include the storage of tires and other auto related parts or merchandise shall be located inside the building. 4. That any exterior lighting shall be maintained in such a manner as to eliminate direct light and glare on adjoining properties and East Coast Highway, Goldenrod Avenue, or be removed. 5. No vehicle waiting for service shall be parked outside of the building for a period longer than twenty -four hours unless it is in the process of being serviced. No vehicle shall be considered to be in the process of being serviced for a period longer than one week. • 6. That no vehicles waiting for service or pickup shall be stored on Goldenrod Avenue or on any other public street or other public property. -8- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 4, 1988 A 99'°09 v G NO 9i t0 fo 6. �y $9, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RONWCALL INDEX 7. That all paved .surfaces on the subject property shall be resurfaced. 8. That a minimum of nine (9) independently accessible off - street parking spaces shall be provided and that the parking spaces shall.be striped with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 9. That all employees shall park on -site. 10. That all signs shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. Signs indicating "for sale" or "lease" shall not be permitted in the windshield of the autos or elsewhere on the site. 11. That the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 8:00 a.m, and 6:00 p.m. 12. That no major automobile repairs as defined in Section 20.70.020(b) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be permitted on -site unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 13. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 14. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit or commence operations as an automobile repair facility prior to completion of the public improvements. 15. That deteriorated and tree - damaged portions of sidewalk be reconstructed along East Coast Highway and Goldenrod Avenue, and that the parkway be filled in with concrete sidewalk along the Goldenrod Avenue frontage with tree wells provided for the existing palm trees. All work along the East Coast Highway frontage shall be completed under an encroachment • permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. -9- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yo 0�0 oa�a�m February 4, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL CALL INDEX 16. That an access ramp be constructed per City Standard 181 -L at the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 17. That the on -site parking and circulation be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 18. That adequate sight distance be provided for vehicles exiting the site with the design to be approved by the Public Works Department and that the palm trees next to the alley be removed and /or pruned to provide adequate sight distance. 19. That the driveway on East Coast Highway closest to the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway shall be closed in accordance with procedures of the City of Newport Beach and the California Department of • Transportation. The improvements shall be completed within 18 months of issuance of the use permit and the applicant shall provide a bond, certificate of deposit, or other acceptable guarantee for completion to be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit or the establishment of the automobile repair facility on the property. 20. That the auto repair facility shall not open for business until such time as cleanup of contaminated soils has commenced according to a plan approved by the Orange County Health Department and other applicable agencies. 21. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or . recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 22. This use permit shall expire unless exercised • within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -10- COMMISSIONERS _ 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 R CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3065 (Amended((Continued Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which Op3065A permitted the expansion of the existing Woody's Wharf Restaurant on property located in the "Recreational and Denied Marine Commercial" area of the Cannery Vi1lage/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. Said approval also allowed the purchase of in -lieu parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking and the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces with a full time valet parking service. The proposed amendment involves: a request to increase the "net public area" on the existing outdoor deck; to partially enclose said outdoor deck area for dining purposes; to satisfy the additional required off - street parking spaces through the purchase of additional in -lieu parking spaces in the Municipal parking lot; and a request to allow the use of the outdoor deck until 2:00 a.m., whereas the existing use permit requires the • use of the outdoor deck to cease at 11:00 p.m, nightly. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to permit the deck enclosure to encroach 2.18 feet into the required 10 foot setback from the bulkhead line. LOCATION: Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 223, Section A, Newport Beach, and a portion of Lot 2, Section 33, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, located at 2318 Newport Boulevard, on the northeasterly side of Newport Boulevard, between 23rd Street and 26th Street in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Ralph Furra, Newport Beach OWNER: Ruth Payne Smith, Corona del Mar William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, referred to a letter that was submitted to the Planning Commission by Harwood, Adkinson & Meindl, signed by Dennis Harwood, attorney for the property owner, dated February 3, 1988. Mr. Laycock said that the letter states that the property owner has concerns regarding several of the conditions of approval that staff has recommended in Exhibit "A ". In reference to suggested Condition No. 3 "that an 8 foot wide lateral access easement shall be -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y`6F0 ��,F� February 4, 1988 BG 9N X9'01 9 v,� � °� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R011KCALL INDEX provided adjacent to the Rhine Channel and a 6 foot wide vertical access easement shall be provided at the northerly portion of the site to link Newport Boulevard and the Rhine Channel.. ", Section 20.63.045 M of the Municipal Code states that when approving a use permit, the Planning Commission must require dedication.of. this particular lateral and' vertical access easements. He stated that Mr. Harwood has indicated that the applicant has no authority under the terms of the lease to encumber the property with the easements. Mr. Laycock advised that unless the Planning Commission waives said Condition No. 3, then a finding would have to be made that would state "that adequate public access to the bay already exists, inasmuch as the street end of 26th Street is located only 180 feet from the restaurant site." He stated that if the Planning Commission cannot make said finding, then the project must be denied or continued until the applicant applies for a Variance to waive the requirement. He said that if the application is denied, that Finding No. 4 is suggested: "that the property owner may not be willing to allow the provision of public access easements on the site as required by • the Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program." Mr. Laycock further stated that Condition No. 23 of Exhibit "A ", suggests that a resubdivision be approved to combine the lots into one building site and the parcel map be filed prior to issuance of building permits to enclose the deck. He explained that this is a requirement of the Municipal Code and the property owner has indicated that she may be unwilling to resubdivide the property and create one building site. If so, he said that either the project would have to be denied or a waiver of the parcel map could be approved by the Planning Commission at a later date. In reference to in -lieu parking, Mr. Laycock referred to a previous use permit that was recently approved by the Planning Commission that included a condition stating that a report be submitted to the Planning Department every six months detailing the use by the applicant of the Municipal Parking Lot. He indicated that staff has included a similar condition in the addendum to the staff report, but he advised that because the majority of the business will be coming from restaurant patrons it may be difficult to locate where the patrons are parking. Commissioner Winburn referred to the in -lieu parking • condition, and she stated that if the application is approved then the applicant's 22 in -lieu parking spaces in the Municipal Parking Lot may absorb 22 percent of -12- COMMISSIONERS A�'fQ•,�•�tn _ q2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RO CALL INDEX the parking spaces. She indicated that it may be easier to administer the use of the Municipal Parking Lot by the subject restaurant inasmuch as the facility is close to the parking lot. Commissioner Winburn referred to the number of complaints that have been received from adjacent property owners because the restaurant patrons are parking their automobiles on adjoining lots and streets. In response to clarification as stated by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the subject property owner's not agreeing to aforementioned Condition No. 3, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the Planning Commission has the option to waive said Condition, to add aforementioned Finding No. 8, deny the use permit and then the applicant could apply for a Variance. In response to a statement by Commissioner Debay that there is no boardwalk bordering the bay, Chairman Pers6n explained that there is a long -term plan that was implemented within the Local Coastal Program that included a public walkway along the bay through the Cannery Village area. Mr. Laycock commented that the City is recommending that an area be provided for the walkway, but that the walkway's development would not be implemented at this time. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Ralph Furra, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Furra stated that if the City would not approve the additional 12 in -lieu parking spaces that he was prepared to purchase a parking lot on Newport Boulevard north of the restaurant which would accommodate said parking spaces. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Ms. Korade commented that the Planning Commission would not be able to act on the issue because an Off -Site Parking Agreement would have to be considered and approved. In reference to concerns relating to the noise factor, Mr. Furra stated that the restaurant's doors are closed at 10:30 p.m., and that he has requested that the bands monitor their sound. He commented that during the past two months the Police Department has stated that the noise emanating from the restaurant is now under control. Mr. Furra stated that they intend to control the noise by installing insulated glass as a barrier, and that a doorman would be assigned to the patio area to monitor the noise created by the band and patrons. In response to questions posed by Mr. Laycock, Mr. Furra -13- COMMISSIONERS A Uj 0�� 0 C� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RO ALL INDEX replied that the installed glass would surround the entire patio area and to the ceiling so that there would be an enclosed structure. Mr. Furra explained that the center-of the roof is a permanent ceiling, and that two - thirds of the ceiling would retract for sunlight but that it would be closed in the evening to mitigate the noise. In response to numerous questions posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Furra replied that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A "; that he previously has operated two cocktail lounges in Mission Viejo and San Clemente that are nonconforming uses; that he did not purchase the restaurant through a real estate agent; that prior to purchasing the restaurant he came to the Planning Department regarding the use permit and that he was informed that there were no conditions that would adversely affect his ability to operate the restaurant. Chairman Pers6n pointed out that the use permit file is public record and that Mr. Furra could have personally inspected said file. • In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Furra replied that he purchased the restaurant in August, 1987. He explained that on November 16, 1987, a sign was posted in the entryway that 102 people were allowed on the premises inside of the restaurant and 28 people were allowed outside on the deck. He stated that the Police Department informed him that the signs were illegally posted and that the occupancy was to be 78 people on the inside and 28 people on the deck. Mr. Furra maintained that he then attempted to restrict the occupancy load by monitoring the four entrances to the restaurant. In response to a question by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Furra stated that he was in escrow for approximately sixty days, and that he did not investigate the status of the business license because he intended to renew the business license when it expired at the end of the year.' In response to a question.posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Furra replied that the previous restaurant owners posted the occupancy load signs. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he was on the restaurant site at 9:30 a.m. Monday, that he observed the occupancy load sign allowing 28 people on the deck �. area, that he had counted 38 chairs sitting on the deck and 27 chairs were stacked on the back of the deck, and he commented that one way to control the occupancy would -14- COMMISSIONERS q q� S�� y9��oy�� 0 _ 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX would be to not have that many chairs available for the patrons to use. Mr. Furra replied that there has not been an occupancy problem on the patio area, and that during the times that they were cited by the Police Department, the area of concern was inside the restaurant. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Police Department has indicated that there have been violations on the deck past 11:00 p.m. Mr. Furra stated that he was informed on November 16 that the deck was not to be used after 11:00 p.m., and since that time they have not used the outside area. In response to Commissioner Di Sano's question, Mr. Furra agreed to enter into or bond for an off - street parking lot to accommodate 12 automobiles. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn and Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Furra stated that the parking lot is in the 2800 block on Newport Boulevard, on the same side of the street as the subject restaurant. • Mr. Dwight Belden, 2006 Debra Lane, owner of the Red Onion Restaurant on the adjoining lot, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the approval of the subject use permit because of inadequate parking. He commented that there is lack of parking in the immediate area and that the Red Onion Restaurant has three in -lieu parking spaces in the Municipal Parking Lot across the street from the Red Onion Restaurant. He stated that to allow the applicants to significantly increase the size of the "net public area" of the subject restaurant would impact the parking facilities. As a member of the McFadden Square Association he said that parking has still not been addressed in the area. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she was concerned about the parking situation in the McFadden Square area, that there is inadequate parking to allow for the expansion of the subject restaurant, and that the conditions of the previous use permit have been . flagrantly violated in regard to the expansion of the restaurant. Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3065 (Amended) X subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit "B ", including Finding No. 4, "that the property owner may not be willing to allow. the provision of public access -15- COMMISSIONERS ti q0 ;�^0 �y Ash o�� 9 a��oy��Co 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RoLWALL INDEX easements on the site as required by the Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program." Chairman Pers6n requested an amendment to the motion that this matter be placed on the next agenda to be set for public hearing to review the existing conditions of approval of the existing use permit. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment to the motion. In reference to the subject use permit, Ms. Korade commented that there is a 21 day appeal period to the City Council. Chairman Pers6n commented that the Planning Commission would be reviewing the original use permit, and that the 21 day appeal would apply to the subject application only. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the motion. He referred to a letter submitted by Mr. William Blurock and testimony by Mr. Belden regarding parking, and he suggested that until the in -lieu parking has been addressed for the area that a delay is • warranted. He commented that he would be interested in observing the success of Mr. Furra's parking lot 500 feet away if he chose to purchase the parking lot. Commissioner Pomeroy concurred with Commissioner Di Sano's statement. He added that there have been continuous violations with the original use permit, and that he did not approve of bending the rules as was previously done to approve the additional in -lieu parking spaces. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion. She pointed out that several of the conditions of the original use permit have not been complied with since that use permit was approved, and that she was particularly concerned that the deck was built without the required permits. Chairman Pers6n stated that previously the Planning Commission was requested to approve a use that was expanded illegally and now the Planning Commission is being asked to intensify the use which was illegal in the first place. He commented that the applicant should have reviewed the conditions to the use permit prior to operating the subject restaurant. Chairman Pers6n stated that when the original use permit comes back to the Planning Commission that he will want.to look at his • previous suggestion to install glass around the front of the deck, and that some of the conditions be modified to indicate that there is better compliance with the use -16- COMMISSIONERS 4 y�G�y�yNOy9��Q9� _ 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX permit that was originally granted. Motion was voted on to deny Use Permit No. 3065 (Amended) subject to the findings in Exhibit "B" All Ayes including aforementioned Finding No. 4. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS 1. That adequate off - street parking is not available for the proposed expanded restaurant to satisfy the requirements of Section 20.30.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, inasmuch as the nearby Municipal parking lot is already used to capacity during peak periods. 2. That the facility has been an enforcement problem in the past, and that existing problems may be perpetuated. 3. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or the building applied for will, under the • circumstances of the particular case, be detrimen- tal to the health, safety, .peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and will be detrimental and injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. 4. That the property owner may not be willing to allow the provision of public access easements on the site as required by the Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program. Resubdivision No. 861 (Public Hearing) Item No.5 R861 Request to resubdivide property located in the R -1 -B District so as to establish a parcel of land for single — family purposes. The proposal also includes a request Continued to approve a proposed grading plan of the site so as to to 2 -18 -88 establish grade for the purpose of measuring building height; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Block 96, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3841 Ocean Birch Drive, on the southerly side of Ocean Birch Drive between the southerly terminus of Spyglass Hill Road and Sea Bell Circle, in the Spyglass Ridge residential area. 17 COMMISSIONERS Nt 9 �D9 9 _ � o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RO ALL INDEX ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT: James C. Manning, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that staff has recommended that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 18, 1988. Motion N Motion was made and voted on to continue Resubdivision All Ayes No. 861 to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 18, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. A. Amendment No. 658 (Public Hearing) Item..No.6 Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community A658 Development Standards so as to establish provisions (81171) which would allow structures located within a portion of Industrial Site 3A to be constructed in excess of the 35 UP3308 . • foot height limit up to a maximum of 50 feet, subject to the approval of a use permit. The proposal also Approved . includes the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Use Permit No. 3308 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of three office buildings on property located in Industrial Site 3A of the Newport Place Planned Community which exceed the 35 foot basic height limit. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking. LOCATION: Parcels No. 1 and No. 2 of Parcel Map 86- 33-34 ( Resubdivision No. 529), located at 3600, 3610 and 3620 Birch Street on the northeasterly corner of Bristol Street North and Birch Street, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Strock Architects, Inc. Newport Beach OWNER: The Wattson Company, Newport Beach -18- COMMISSIONERS yB 99"�9v �9y J Nay f � y0 � _ C Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RoLWALL INDEX William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that staff has suggested that Condition No. 21 be added to Exhibit "A" as follows: "that the applicant shall provide adequate on -site parking for the construction workers during the construction phase of the development unless other arrangements are made with the Public Works Department." The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Arthur Strock, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Strock concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including staff's recommended Condition No. 21. He commented that staff's concerns regarding on -site parking will be resolved, and that the parcel map is in the process of preparation and will be filed for review and approval. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 658 (Resolution yes No. 1171) and Use Permit No. 3308 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the aforementioned Condition No. 21. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following 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. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. B. Amendment No. 658: Findines• 1. That the proposed amendment will not increase the allowable development in the Newport Place Planned Community. 2. That the proposed height limit provisions will allow a greater flexibility in the overall design i -19- COMMISSIONERS 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX of buildings located within the subject property in the Newport Place Planned Community. 3. That the proposed height limit provisions include specific design criteria which must be incorporated into the design of a project, in order for the Planning Commission to approve a use permit for the increased height of any structure. C. Use Permit No. 3308 Findings: 1. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. • 3. That adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 4. The proposed number of compact car spaces will not exceed 25 percent of the parking requirement which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applications. 5. That the increased building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 6. That.the increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 7. That the increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being . created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. 8. That the structure will have no more floor area • than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. -20- COMMISSIONERS '4 �Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 ROLL CALL INDEX 9. 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. 10. That Section 13.05.010 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires that public improvements be completed in commercial areas prior to the issuance of Building Permits for a new structure. 11. The approval of Use Permit No. 3308 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 and further that the proposed modification to allow the use of compact parking spaces is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plans, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. 4. That a minimum of one parking space for each 225 square feet.of net floor area shall be provided on- site. 5. That a maximum of 25 percent of the required number of off - street parking spaces may be compact spaces. -21- . COMMISSIONERS I�oy�, 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RO CALL INDEX 6. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the public streets and adjoining properties. 7. That all signs shall conform to the applicable provisions of the Newport Place Planned Community District.Regulations. 8. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or sub- leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business • establishments which rely on such service. b.) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; c.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 11. That each building be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. -22- COMMISSIONERS i .oF $F�Q,Or OF 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RO CALL INDEX 12. That the intersection of the. private drives and streets be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight. distance line shall not exceed twenty four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non- critical locations, subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 13. That landscape plans shall be subject to the approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. 14. That a full width sidewalk, six (6) feet wide be constructed along Bristol Street North and Birch Street frontages; that a curb access ramp be constructed at the intersection of Bristol Street North and Birch Street per City Standard 181 -L; that the drive apron on Birch Street be constructed per City Standard 166 -L; and, that the drive apron • design on Bristol Street North be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. All work along the Birch Street frontage shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. All work along the Bristol Street North frontage shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 15. That the County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 16. 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. The study shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water, and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 17. That the gross floor area of the proposed . development shall not exceed 40,951 square feet, as established by the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan. -23- COMMISSIONERS X16 0 gym _ 9Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 ROLVICALL INDEX 18. That the applicant shall file a resubdivision and record a parcel map so as to establish the subject property as a single building site prior to the issuance of building permits. 19. That Use Permit No. 3308 shall not become valid until Amendment No. 658 is approved by the City Council. 20. 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. 21. That the applicant shall provide adequate on -site parking for the construction workers during the construction phase of the development unless other arrangements are made with the Public Works Department. • The Planning Commission recessed at 8:40 p.m, and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Koppelman was excused from the Planning Commission Meeting at this time because of illness. Koppelman excused Amendment No. 627 (Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to amend Title 20 for the Newport Beach A627 Municipal Code so as to establish provisions for the i(R1172) installation of amateur radio antennas. Said provisions as currently drafted may allow amateur radio antennas up Approved to an operating height of 75 feet. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, referred to the memorandum from the City Attorney's office addressed to the Planning Commission dated January 28, 1988. She stated that the memorandum sets forth the paremeters for consideration of the subject Ordinance, and she • emphasized that the constraints have been set by the Federal Communications Commission. Ms. Korade stated that the Planning Commission must consider the following 24 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES d February 4, 1988 A A9 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RO CALL INDEX three requirements to evaluate the subject Ordinance: 1. Based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations; 2. Represented a reasonable accommodation to amateur radio communications; 3. Represented the minimum practicable regulation necessary to accomplish the local agency's legitimate purposes. Chairman Pers6n referred to literature that was distributed in reference to the Planning Commission allowing the radio antennas to be permitted to a height of 75 feet. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n regarding the current height restrictions, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, replied that the City currently considers radio antennas as a structure. He explained that in R -1 and R -2 Districts, the radio antennas are permitted to a maximum height of 24 feet inasmuch as that height is the basic height for • a single family dwelling or a duplex, and that in various other Districts the radio antennas would be permitted to go higher. Chairman Pers6n asked if the restriction of the height of radio antennas is reasonable under the guidelines given by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Ms. Korade explained that prior to the FCC regulations, radio antennas were considered under the First Amendment ruling as an infringement on ham radio operators to receive broadcasts and to broadcast information. She said that more restrictions were imposed by the FCC on local government. Chairman Pers6n asked if the City could impose the 24 foot height limitation, what would be the outcome of litigation and where would the subject Ordinance stand under those terms? Ms. Korade replied that if the City enforced a 24 foot height limitation, the Ordinance would be declared unconstitutional, the City would be faced with possible lawsuits, the' Ordinance would be thrown out, and no height restrictions could be.imposed throughout the City. Commissioner Di Sano asked if within the sections of the City containing Homeowners Associations governed by CC&R's, can the CC&R's preclude a height limitation? Ms. Korade explained that there are constitutional issues; however, the FCC ruling does not address • private restrictions because the FCC feels that if two private parties want to restrict the height of radio antennas, they can. She stated that the subject -25- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RO ALL INDEX Ordinance does not affect CC&R's. Ms. Korade said that the subject Ordinance allows private individuals to contract by purchasing a house and agreeing to the restrictions. She stated that if there is a dispute regarding CC&R's, that would be between the private parties and the City would not be involved in that litigation. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to a letter received from Zachary Sham & Associates, Architectural adviser, dated February 1, 1988, opposing the subject Ordinance. He inquired if the purchaser or owner of the house agreed to the conditions of the CC&R's when the property was purchased, could those conditions be enforced between the private parties. Ms. Korade replied that would be between the private parties, and that would be a reasonable interpretation; however, because of the constitutional issues involved, she said that she would not give an advisory ruling that is currently not before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Merrill expressed his concern -that a • homeowner residing in an area that is governed by CC&R's could feasibly apply for a permit to install an antenna without contacting the Homeowner's Association, and he inquired if the applicable Homeowner's Association could be contacted by the City stating that said homeowner was applying for an antenna permit. Ms. Korade explained that the City could legally notify the Homeowner's Association of the pending permit, but that the City legally cannot interfere with the problems that could occur between the private parties. A second concern that Commissioner Merrill expressed was that an extended antenna could be left at the residence after the residence was no longer occupied, and that the antenna would no longer be in use. Commissioner Merrill pointed out that the antennas that are currently in use will not be affected by the proposed Ordinance, and he asked for the number of existing antennas. Mr. Laycock advised that the City does not have the number of current radio antennas within the City. Chairman Pers6n asked if because the City's interpretation regarding the current Ordinance states that there are no restrictions on the heights of the radio antennas, then the law that the City currently has regarding the antennas is unconstitutional? Ms. Korade replied that the law is currently unconstitutional and • unenforceable, and that a resident may currently and legally install an antenna of any height. She explained that the purpose of the proposed Ordinance is so that -26- COMMISSIONERS 0�w��m m 9 m'�o9 v Ty CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RCMWCALL INDEX the City will have standards that can be enforceable. Mr. Laycock responded affirmatively with Commissioner Merrill's statement that the proposed Ordinance does not include satellite dish antennas. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bob Williamson, 1906 Seadrift Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the local ham radio operators, many of whom were in attendance during the public hearing inasmuch as Mr. Williamson requested that they stand for recognition. Mr. Williamson explained that most of the radio operators have assisted the City, the County, and the Harbor Patrol in numerous activities, and that they have also served other regions of the United States and Mexico. He stated that the ham radio operators have assisted staff in the draft of the proposed Ordinance. He agreed to the proposed 28 foot height limitation when the antennas were not in operation, and the request that the towers shall be motorized. He said that the operators will want to lower the towers because of the damage the wind could do to the antennas. Mr. Glen Nelson, 1300 Cambridge Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission in strong opposition to the proposed Ordinance, and he referred to his letter addressed to the Planning Commission dated February 3, 1988. His reasons for opposition to the proposed Ordinance are: that the health, safety and aesthetics of the antennas are contrary to the proposed Ordinance; he referred to the Environmental Report, No. 17, Human Health, whereby staff's response is "maybe" and he suggested that the proposed Ordinance be delayed until there is a definitive answer; he referred to the articles that he submitted regarding the potential health hazards to ham radio operators, specifically an article referring to a study done by Dr. Samuel Milham, Jr.; that community groups throughout the City were not notified to assist with the Draft Ordinance; and who will govern the control of the antennas. In response to Commissioner Debay regarding the FCC constraints, Mr. Nelson replied that the City should be the most concerned about the residents even if the City would be taken to court. Chairman PersGn explained that the Planning Commission must uphold the City's laws and to interpret the law, and that the Planning Commission would have difficulty approving an Ordinance with the expectation that the Ordinance is going to be overturned in a court of law. -27- COMMISSIONERS ymG . t^��•p9�9y 9A 9y o� y 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RoPMALL INDEX Dr. Wayne Overbeck, Professor of Communications, California State University /Fullerton, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. Overbeck referred to Dr. Samuel Milham, Jr.'s article, Los Angeles Times, January 3, 1988, and he stated that Dr. Milham found in the foregoing study that the cause of death many ham radio operators in the State of Washington and State of California from certain types of cancer was higher than the national average; that the rate of death from several other kinds of cancer was substantially lower than the national average; that Dr. Milham felt that the explanation for the trends that he was noting had nothing to do with amateur radio operators but rather it reflected the fact that many amateur ratio operators are employed in technical operations where their occupational exposure to various kinds of environments may be greater than the average; and that there is no evidence that the amateur radio operator activity had any relationship to the health trends. As a board member of the American Radio Relay League, Dr. Overbeck stated that they conducted a study of the problem and in reference to the health concerns, that they have found that the energy levels from ham radio operators is lower than the energy level that is considered safe from the Environmental Protection Agency for many other devices. .In conclusion, Dr. Overbeck stated that there is no substance under which they could identify there is any health problem. Commissioner Debay referred to an article regarding magnetic fields and leukemia that Mr. Nelson distributed . to the Planning Commission, and in response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Dr. Overbeck replied that there is some scientific debate regarding potential hazards from high tension power lines; however, the radio signals that a ham radio operator generates with his transmitter are entirely different. Mr. Sid Sofer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed Ordinance. He explained that the proposed Ordinance would allow the City to control the.antenna height limitation; however, if the Ordinance would be delayed, then any antenna height could be maintained. Mrs. Kathy Nelson, 1300 Cambridge Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. Mrs. Nelson commented that only specific • residents were aware and were notified of the proposed Ordinance. Chairman Person and Mr. Laycock explained that public notices were mailed to: all of the _28_ COMMISSIONERS �0 mG�y�9moy�C��Qy� � 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RcLWALL INDEX homeowner's associations and that they would be responsible to notify property owners within their area; 500 residents from a list of ham radio operators; residents who had written letters of complaints to the City; and that the public notice was published in a local newspaper. Chairman PersGn pointed out that a flyer in opposition to the proposed Ordinance was also distributed door to door in Irvine Terrace and on Bayside Drive. Mr. Tom Orlando, No. 15 Balboa Coves, appeared before the Planning- Commission in support of the proposed Ordinance. He stated that one -half of one percent of the Newport Beach residents may be ham radio operators, and not more than one in twenty operators would be constructing an antenna of a large magnitude. He stated that his Homeowner's Association CC&R's does not include amateur radio antennas, but there is a restriction for satellite dishes. He advised that any conversions in their area must be approved by the Architectural Committee, and if the modification has not been approved, then the construction is stopped. He • commented that he has not received a complaint about amateur radio antennas. Mr. Bryan Stapelton, 642 Ramona Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed Ordinance. He referred to the foregoing letter received from Sham & Associates regarding CC&R's. He stated that the City should not become a policing agency for Homeowner's. Associations; that there are numerous radio antennas currently installed in Irvine Terrace; that the Homeowner's Association has not tried to enforce the CC&R's because the residents take their antennas down and no one complains; and that ham radio operators who have taken Homeowner's Associations to court have won their cases. He commended the parties who drafted the proposed Ordinance, he said that the ham radio operators support the Ordinance, and he praised the operators for their involvement during times of emergencies and disasters. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to questions that were posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the constitutional issue relating to the enforcement of the current Ordinance by the City Attorney's office and the applicable permits issued by . the City, Ms. Korade replied that it is the opinion of the City Attorney's office that if the Ordinance would -29- COMMISSIONERS yq���0OJ+�d. dG �� 99'$ 9 9y a rr $� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 RO ALL INDEX be challenged in Court, the Court would apply prior, rulings, and declare the Ordinance unconstitutional and also the Court would give the City back to the FCC preemptions and find the Ordinance unconstitutional. She commented that the current Ordinance has not been declared unconstitutional by a Court of Law; however, it is the opinion of the City Attorney's office. Mr. Laycock replied that building permits are only issued for the antennas' foundations, and not for the structures containing the radio antennas. $e explained that the only times that the City has been involved with an antenna that exceeds 24 feet is from a complaint that an antenna exceeds the height limit, and then the Code Enforcement Officer follows through on that complaint to see that the antenna meets the height limit. Motion x Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 627 (Resolution No. 1172), including Section 20.77.075 be revised so as to require operators of legal nonconforming amateur radio antennas to comply with as many of the proposed standards as possible, and that said approval be • referred to the City Council for consideration. Commissioner Di Sano supported the motion. He recognized the foregoing concerns regarding the health and safety of the Newport Beach residents, and he commended the ham radio operators involvement in drafting the proposed Ordinance and the many services that have benefited the community. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to Section 20.77.030 (D3), which states that "in the case of double frontage lots, the frontage of the most heavily traveled street shall apply. ", and he requested clarification of said statement because he said that it would be impossible to determine traffic counts, and that in almost every instance it would be known which one was the front. Commissioner Merrill referred to the Homeowner's Associations CC&R's and the City's involvement to contact the applicable Homeowner's Association when a member of the Homeowner's Association comes into the City to apply for a permit. Discussion ensued, and it was determined that the recommendation would remain as policy because said policy could be amended if the need arises. Commissioner Merrill suggested that a letter could be written by the City and mailed to each Homeowner's Association to inform the Association that • the Ordinance has been adopted. He said that if the Association has a desire to be contacted by the City when a resident applies for a permit then the -30- COMMISSIONERS yA A0 �0 �a NO�� m 99 Sf99 G� 9 NO _ ti o y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 R CALL INDEX Homeowner's Association could file a letter with the City requesting said notification. Commissioner Pomeroy asked if there is a requirement in the Ordinance stating that the antenna would remain if the permit were issued, the antenna were installed, the house were sold and the licensing operator moved. Ms. Korade replied that the issue is not addressed in the proposed Ordinance, and she suggested that the Planning Commission may want to include such a provision. Chairman Pers6n stated that Section 20 of the Zoning Code addresses the issue that the antennas would have to go with the land. Mr. Laycock stated that most individuals who would install an amateur radio antenna would move the antenna with .them because to leave said antenna could be too expensive to the individual. Ms. Korade stated that the provision could be added, but that she did not have any factual basis on what would be involved in removing or requiring the removal. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that he brought up the issue only for clarification because during the public hearing the concern was brought to his attention. Motion was voted on to approve Amendment No.- 627 (Resolution No. 1172) including the aforementioned revision to Section 20.77.075, and recommended that the Ayes x x x x x 2 Amendment be referred to City Council for its Absent x consideration. MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Discussion Items Planning Commission Review of the duties. functions. and the review process of the Modifications Committee. No.l Continued INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach to 2 -18 -88 Motion x Motion was made to continue this item to the February Ayes x x x K, X x 18, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, Absent MOTION CARRIED. • -31- COMMISSIONERS .O�i�•F Oi•dtn y��9y9��oy9���0 _ �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 ROWFCALL INDEX Reauest to consider Possible scheduling_ of Plannine No. 2 Commission Study Sessions. Study INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Session The Planning Commission requested that staff submit an agenda of items at the February 18, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting that could be discussed at a Study Session scheduled for March 10, 1988. The following items were suggested by the Planning Commission: 1. Takeout restaurants, and the provision of allowing seats in said restaurant use. 2. How the number of required off - street parking spaces are determined for particular uses. 3. The history of in -lieu parking, and an up -date of proposed revisions recommended by the Off - Street Parking Committee. 4. The possibility of fines or other penalties when building permits have not been issued for illegal construction, or when conditions of approval in conjunction with use permits have been violated. Motion 21 Motion was made and voted on to direct staff to submit a Ayes x x x K K x Study Session agenda to the Planning Commission at the Absent x February 18, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Reauest to reconsider amending conditions of aPProval in No. 3 conjunction with Use Permit No 3287 that Permitted the change of operational characteristics of an existine UP3287 take -out ice cream shop and Italian deli located at 205 Set for Main Street in Central Balboa. review INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Chairman PersSn requested that Use Permit No. 3287 be reviewed with the applicant for purpose of clarification of the conditions of approval. Motion x Motion was made to consider amending the conditions of x x x x x I approval of Use Permit No. 3287 in accordance with t x Condition No. 11 of said Use Permit at the March 10, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -32- COMMISSIONERS Zm 0 c^��t^9 0 9 7 G��9 oy �� �yC _ 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 4, 1988 ROWULL INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional - Business - Motion x Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Ayes x x x C K x Pomeroy from the February 18, 1988 Planning Commission Pomeroy ,Absent meeting. MOTION CARRIED. excused ADJOURNMENT: 10:05 P.M. Adjournment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -33-