Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/1996COMMISSIONERS . �1 9' .0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: February 8, 1996 MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL Commissioner Gifford was excused, all other Commissioners were present * ** EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Bob Burnham, City Attorney Patricia Temple, Acting Planning Director Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Ginger Vann, Executive Secretary Pat Alford, Senior Planner # *# • Minutes of January 18, 1996: Minutes 1/18/96 Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve with correction, the January 18, 1996, Planning Commission Mmutes. MOTION CARRIED - 6 Ayes, 1 Ayes Absent Absent * ** Public Comments: None Public Comment Posting of the Agenda: Posting ' Agenda Ms. Temple stated that the Corrected Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Monday, February 5, 1996, outside of City Hall. of of COMMISSIONERS o 2 9L�h F MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL INDEX CALL I SUBJECT: Ma' Ma Mia Restaurant i item i 3408 Via Oporto Use Permit No. 3576 (Continued from U UP: No. 35 January 18, 1996) withdrawn Conversion of a take -out restaurant to a full service restaurant, with on- sale alcoholic beverage service and the non - exclusive use of an outdoor dining area. Staff reported that the applicant Max Douk, has withdrawn this application. SUBJECT: Specialty Food Service, Alcoholic Beverage I Item 2 76 COMMISSIONERS 0\ �0 L 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX of this chapter to address these concerns. On traffic and parking, these issues have been addressed by strengthening the conditions relative to findings so specialty food uses require parking and traffic characteristics similar to retail uses. The language has been reinforced to enable the Commission, when an issue is brought forward, to determine if this use is compatible with the surrounding areas and be similar in intensity to a retail use. Chairperson Ridgeway asked staff about the review of the parking requirements, if the Commission makes a specific finding at that point in time. Staff responded that there are specific findings for a specialty food service use which must be made, including parking demand and traffic generation characteristics similar to that of a retail use. This specific finding is made by the Commission when dealing with an existing or a ' new specialty food use requesting alcoholic beverage or live entertainment. Staff continued on the issue of noise. The City has recently adopted a Noise Ordinance that provides adequate protections to assure that the adjoining properties are not legally impacted by the use. The issue of bars and theater /nightclubs has been addressed by tightening up those definitions, to assure a clearer distinction between these uses. Commissioner Kranzley asked if specialty food service establishments have the right to take advantage of the outdoor dining provisions. Staff responded in the affirmative, and claifiried that the limit is 20 seats plus 25 %. Commissioner Adams asked about the provision for dancing in a specialty food establishment. The criteria for specialty foods is quick ' 3 4 COMMISSIONERS 2 9L Ll��p\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX consumption. Someone dancing and enjoying entertainment is not consistent with the idea of quick consumption of food. staff answered that in the code there has always been a linkage between dancing and live entertainment. The purpose is to ensure that no one can develop a loop hole by inferring "audience participation" or "this person really isn't an entertainer". The act of dancing has been linked with live entertainment in order to address these issues. Commissioner Adams continued discussion relating to matters of entertainment and dancing in an establishment that serves food that is quickly consumed. He asked if there were any specific inquiries made regarding providing a dance floor or three entertainers. Staff indicated that the only request was for a single entertainer with no ` dancing in a coffee shop. I Commissioner Pomeroy commented on specialty food use having entertainment with three or two entertainers; restriction of entertainers, etc. He opined that having entertainers adds to the ambiance of the shop and enhances the business potential for the shop owner. Commissioner Kranzley asked, if the Commission views this as an intensification of the use, could the parking requirements be increased on a specialty food establishment. Staff answered that the required finding that was referenced in the report states that the use has to have parking demand characteristics similar to that of a retail use. If the Commission determines that the parking demand is higher than a general retail establishment, the finding could not be made. The use would, therefore, be defined as a full-scale restaurant. ' 4 COMMISSIONERS 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Discussion ensued regarding determinations; parking issues; waiver /denial; alternate sites of parking spaces; the limit of standees; limit to occupancy of the public portion of the building and the monitoring of receipts. Staff stated that the structure of this ordinance places an additional burden on staff to not just accept a specialty food application in any event that happens to be 2,000 square feet and a 20 seat limit. Staff will have to look at the operation proposed and make sure it meets all the requirements for specialty food, including the parking demand characteristics. Code enforcement may also be involved if it is determined there is a violation. Public Hearing was opened. ' Chairperson Ridgeway referenced a letter received from Mr. Tom Hyans and pointed out an error and stated he will contact Mr. Hyans to clarify the matter since Mr. Hyans was not present. Dan Marchiano, President of Newport Beach Restaurant Association - (spelling and address not given) spoke on the matter of use permit abuse. If a use permit is issued to a specialty food use and the owner turns the establishment into a nightclub, how long would it take to cancel the use permit. Staff answered that on all use permits, standard call up provisions are maintained. If a use which violates the conditions of approval was unresponsive to code enforcement process the use would then be brought back to the Planning Commission for additional conditions or consideration of possible revocation. Chairperson Ridgeway stated that if there is a misuse, and code enforcement does not bring about the appropriate operational ' S COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL I INDEX characteristics, planning staff can agendize it for the next Planning Commission meeting. Attorney Burnham agreed that it could be agendized that quickly but cautions that it takes a considerable amount of time if the applicant contests the revocation. Discussion continued regarding the definitions, clarifications and possible criteria of specialty food uses: • how fast it takes to prepare food items • limitation of the number of items on the menu food that is consumed quickly on the premises • fairness issue of parking requirements between specialty food and restaurant operations COMMISSIONERS 4 MINUTES • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Chairperson Ridgeway continued by stating that an appeal/revocation of use permit is required for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should have the ability to control any areas within the city that are problematic. Commissioner Adams brings up a cumulative impact argument and it is exacerbated by that one project. City Attorney Burnham stated the grounds to revoke a specialty food use permit by the Planning Director would be a violation of the provisions of the specialty food ordinance or any condition that may be imposed on the permit by the Planning Director. The Planning Director, Planning Commission or City Council retains the authority or jurisdiction to modify those conditions and whenever the operation of the specialty food ordinance doesn't satisfy the purposes for which the ordinance was adopted (to distinguish between restaurants and retail). The Planning Director on his or her own initiative can impose additional conditions as are necessary to achieve the purpose of the intent of this section. If the Planning Director has information that there is a parking problem or a trash problem or hours of operation, the Planning Director can impose additional conditions on the operation of business. Commissioner Pomeroy asked how many specialty food establishments exist in the City of Newport Beach. Staff answered that 44 have been conditionally approved under the specialty food service permit. These 44 represent less than 10% of the food establishments throughout the City. He continued by asking staff the percentage of the 44 that have created these kinds of problems with specialty foods and the times these problems occur. Staff answered that based on experience, the main time there is a problem with specialty food, particularly in relationship to parking, is usually not attributed to the operation of any individual business but have, in one particular instance, created some problems due to the "grouping" of a high number of theses food uses in a center where there are essentially very few traditional retail uses. The center took on the nature of a food court and in that type of circumstance, problems have i CO�MMISSIONERS L 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 9, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX occurred. These problems usually occur in the early morning and during the lunch time. Chairperson Ridgeway asked why the Planning Director could not pull up all the specialty food use permits in the particular area and reevaluate them? City Attorney answered that it is possible. Commissioner Adams commented that specialty food uses should go back to 1,200 square feet and 12 seats in order to serve the original purpose it was intended for, that being accommodating small shops where the burden of coming in before the Planning Commission to get variances is unreasonable. He questioned staff if they have the ability when re- writing the zoning code to mitigate the issue that keeps a restaurateur from asking for a variance of the nature of the specialty food that is present by today's standards. Staff answered that one of the reasons for specialty food service provisions was due to certain restrictions on the ability to look at restaurant service uses in buildings which exceeded the base FAR limitation. That particular section of the code caused some problems in reestablishing restaurants in previously established retail operations. One of the avenues of relief was the development of specialty food. Within the proposed draft zoning code, staff is proposing procedures whereby restaurant uses which are higher traffic generating land uses by definition within the General Plan in the zoning ordinance could still be allowed through a procedure of looking at overall traffic in the area within which the business resides. Commissioner Adams proposes to quit "throwing stuff' on the back of specialty food and wait until there is a new zoning code that allows somebody who wants alcohol and dancing and a combo to come before the Commission as a restaurant and get a variance. Each one could therefore be evaluated on its own merit instead of lumping this in to a "slam dunk procedure permit use'. 4 COMMISSIONERS 010 il � MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Kranzley spoke in opposition to the live entertainment in a specialty food use. He stated he would not support any resolution that allows dancing. With beer, wine and five entertainment, a full scale restaurant environment where food and beverage will not be consumed quickley with parking requirements of a retail establishment, has been established. Though he believes these establisments need support, he's concerned about the impact on surrounding businesses. Chairperson Ridgeway agrees that when the size of the specialty food use permits went to 2,000 instead of 1,200 square feet, the line was crossed. During the process of a zone tent re- write, the size can be re- visited. Staff answered that one of the purposes of the zoning code re -write is to look at these things in a comprehensive way and at the development characteristics and the definitions and terminology in more detail rather than amending it on a chapter by chapter basis. There is potential for ' doing major revisions to the code, including creating new land use categories that might address the issues in a more efficient way. Chairperson Ridgeway stated that if there is action taken on this item tonight it can be revisited. Certainly some of the concerns expressed by Commissioner Adams are legitimate. The cumulative argument was made about outdoor dining when the size was increased. Commissioner Selich stated that with this amendment we are going beyond the initial intent of the food service ordinance even beyond the 1,200 to 2,000 square feet. The statement that food products and beverages are likely to be quickly consumed seems to be incongruent with the idea of having entertainment and consuming alcoholic beverages on site. In addition, looking at the findings that have to be made, the proposed use must be similar to retail use in traffic generating and parking demand characteristics. These findings will be hard to make once alcohol and entertainment is added. It seems that we are attempting to fit something into a specialty food ordinance that it was really not intended to accommodate. If we do want these types of uses, then we would have to go back and completely restructure the ' 9 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL I INDEX specialty food use ordinance even going back to the original definition. We appear to be straying away from it. Chairperson Ridgeway offered a compromise to discuss beer/wine service only and maybe one entertainer, no dancing. This would get it back to a coffee shop or a quick turn- around food use. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it appears that people are attempting to allow a night time usage for a business that would not normally have a night time usage. Entertainment and beer or wine will not be offered in the morning. For the purposes of compromise, he agrees to eliminate the dancing and also agrees to cut down to one entertainer. In providing this flexibility, a business man has been given an opportunity to take down -time and create profitable time which is very important in a small business. Commissioner Kranzley asked of Commissioner Selich if the EDC had an opinion on this matter. Commissioner Selich answered that at the last meeting they appointed a committee of two people to review the ordinance for presentation at the next EDC meeting. Commissioner Kranzley stated that as there was only one person who came in for the alcohol use and one for the entertainment use, there does not appear to be a rush. He asked staff would it be better to work this in the new zoning code. Mr. Alford answered that the proposed development standards would provide enough of a check to avoid any abuse of these provisions during that interim period when the land uses are being reviewed on a more comprehensive basis. Commissioner Adams stated that if most of the applications are of a nature that is conducive to selling beer and wine and not having much of an effect on the intensification, there is clearly not going to be a COMMISSIONERS s MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL INDEX CALL problem. He stated that we do have the opportunity to fix it the right way in the zoning code within the next six months or so but he suggests that entertainment and dancing be eliminated all together. He does not see the need to accommodate any live entertainment at all in a specialty food establishment. Motion * Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1426 recommending approval of Amendment No. 839 to the City Council with the following modifications: • limit the amount of entertainers to 2 (two) • eliminate dancing 9ubstitut SUBSTITUTE MOTION was made to adopt Resolution No. 1426 Motion * recommending approval of Amendment No. 839 to the City Council with the modification to eliminate all forms of live entertainment and dancing. SUBSTITUTE MOTION was called for and CARRIED - 4 Ayes, 2 Noes and 1 Absent. Noes * * Absent * * • Chairperson Ridgeway excused himself for a short period of time to deal with a family emergency. SUBJECT: Time -Share Regulations (Public Hearing) Item, 3, Amendment No. 842 A 842 Amendment to Chapter 20.76 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to Approves allow time -share projects in commercial districts. Staff reported that the amendment has come about as a result of a request from the new owner of the Hyatt Newporter Hotel. Staff has reviewed this and the City Council has adopted the Resolution of Intention and directed the Planning Commission to commence public hearings on this item. Staff does not have any additional comments, but • 11 COMMISSIONERS 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX states that the proponent and their representatives are present to answer questions of the Commission. Commissioner Selich referred to the application process on page 8, item 4 that addresses the Conversion Plan. He pointed out that it contradicts item 2 under the Conversion of Existing Dwelling Units Prohibited. Staff confirmed that Item 4, Conversion Plan is not necessary and it will be removed from the ordinance. Commissioner Kranzley how many 300 room hotels are in Newport Beach. Staff answered approximately 6: Sutton Place, Sheraton Newport, Marriot Suites, Marriot Tennis Club, Four Seasons and The Hyatt 1 Newporter. Public Hearing was opened. Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Selich spoke in support of this proposal stating it will be of benefit to the City. The controls and all the proposals that staff has made provide the Commission with a great deal of ability to review and ensure the quality of the projects. Time -share developments have advanced over the years with a lot of the major hotels being in the time- share businesses. He commented that the proposed ordinance in the "intent section" should be worded to reflect the fact that this will be a positive endeavor. He suggests re- wording this section to reflect that this is something the City is really trying to do and that it will be a positive thing. ' 12 COMMISSIONERS • Waiym 4 L MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Chairperson Adams spoke on traffic issue for trip generation for time share condominiums at 3.5 trips per occupied unit versus 10 and 9 for a hotel and motel. He questioned the source of this number. Staff answered that these numbers came about through traffic studies that had been done for a few time -share projects in Orange County but mostly in San Diego County. Chairperson Adams stated that he had met with the proponent of this amendment and felt that the nature of the proposal was to have the ultimate use of the time share application have very little distinction between the operation of the time share component of that site and the balance of the site. It is impossible to believe that in this application the trip generation would be 3.5 trips per unit. ` Commissioner Ridgeway returned to the meeting, Chairperson Adams I will continue chairing this item. Commissioner Ridgeway asked about the traffic manual statistics and what is used for the CMP or the city ordinance for hotel use. Mr. Edmonston stated that the City has adopted, in the General Plan process, a list of trip generation rates and for hotels there are a couple of classifications, a resort hotel, hotels and motels. On a straight hotel, it is 10 trips per room. Chairperson Adams stated that those rates are probably consistent with the rates in the table in the staff report, where the resort hotel would be less, presumably because of more amenities and activities on site requiring less trips. With this table, are we saying that we are going to use 3.5 trips per unit for this use? Staff answered that this is to give as much information as staff was able to gather through research on this particular item. Each time -share project as it would come forward would be subject to all of the City's Ordinances including the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. At that time it ' 13 is 4 COMMISSIONERS Oy Lpj��J' MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX would be determined what trip rate was applicable to that particular development. If this is a new use, does a rate for this use need to be adopted or does the Commission have the flexibility to impose a rate on each individual application, was asked of staff. Mr. Edmonston answered that it depends on how this is structured. In the case where there were uses where there is not a well documented trip rate, staff has established one based on the particular characteristics of the project. Without knowing the specific sites that were used for the time -share rate that is here, certainly if it is a time -share that is located right on the beach, you would have fewer trips because your recreation would be there on the site. If the recreation is somewhere else, you might be making more trips to go shopping and in fact go to the beach. ' Attorney Burnham stated that the only time that trip generation rates come into play is when a traffic study is being done. The traffic engineer has the authority to determine trip generation rate(s) at that time. Typically, standard trip generation rates are used unless the applicant can establish to W. Edmonton's satisfaction that there is i some good reason to depart from standard rates. Chairperson Adams stated that the Hyatt Newporter proposal was going to be less intense then the number of rooms they are entitled to, so it would not be problematic. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if the Institute of Traffic Engineers manual was used for trip generation rates. Mr. Edmonton stated that this is the basic starting point but in a number of categories the City has done a number of studies on their . own. A compilation of trip rates prepared by the San Diego Association of Government has been used. These are the two principal published documents in this field. In a number of cases, we have supplemented those with studies performed either by the City or, in an unusual land ' 14 COMMISSIONERS • Oy �,yF9p���.c1�\ t 4 L MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX use category that is not located in either one, the developer has been required to pay a consultant to study several similar sites to develop a trip rate. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that if this amendment is adopted tonight, the Commission is not adopting the time -share trip generated rates that are in the table. Since this amendment is limited to commercial districts, trip generation or traffic is probably not going to be a concern because commercial districts usually generate much higher traffic than time -share uses. On page 2 of the staff report it refers to "impact on services". Then in turning to Chapter 20.76 it talks about a "development agreement" on page 8 regarding taxes and addresses the cost benefit analysis but it does not state who prepares the report. Does that need to be in the Chapter and should the applicant be required to prepare a report, if needed? ' Attorney Burnham answered that the development agreement is going to be the vehicle for establishing transient occupancy tax in lieu of fees or some other mechanism for ensuring that there is economic value to the City. It may be that those provisions in the development agreement need to be negotiated on a case by case basis, depending on the nature of the project, number of time -share units and a myriad of other factors. Since the development agreement is contemplated by the Ordinance, it is going to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council before it is approved. Chairperson Adams asked if a parking requirement was being adopted with this or is it similar to the trip generation issue. Staff answered that the parking shall be provided at a ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit, plus 1 per 50 square feet of banquet seating or meeting area as ' 15 COMMISSIONERS i"'Ag"i psis CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX stated in item 4 on handwritten page 9 of the Time -Share Developments. The basis for this recommended rate was a study of parking requirements for similar projects in other communities showing a consistency of that number of spaces per unit. Some had built in mechanisms for the ancillary facilities. There was a range of parking requirements from 1.2 to I.5 spaces per unit. Motion * Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1427 recommending approval of Amendment No. 842 to the City Council with the following corrections: the deletion of item number 4 on hand written page 8 and any reference to conversion and the deletion of the word "adverse" on Ayes handwritten page 6. MOTION CARRIED - 6 Ayes, I Absent Absent * y • SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 96-1 stem 4 A. Circulation Element - Master Plan of Bikeways Approved Approved B. Temple Bat Yahm -1011 Camelback Street Approved C. Cantanzarite/Summerhouse Approved D. Zoning Code Re -write E. General Plan Update Approved F. Housing Element Approved Staff reported that this is the first of three scheduled annual initiations of amendments to the General Plan. There are six requested amendments, most of which are City proposed amendments, two of which are requested by applicants: Temple Bat Yahm and Cantanzarite/Summerhouse issue. There are representatives in the audience for both of these and are available for questions by the Commission. The only direction to the Commission from the City Council is that a separate action is requested on each individual item. Motion Motion was made for initiation of A - Circulation Element - Master Plan Ayes * of Bikeways - MOTION CARRIED, 6 Ayes and 1 Absent Absent 40 16 COMMISSIONERS • \PO-Ok-0010i � V\09 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Motion was made for initiation of B - Temple Bat Yahm - MOTION Ayes * * * * * * CARRIED, 6 Ayes and 1 Absent Absent Motion Motion was made for initiation of D - Zoning Code Re -write - Ayes * * * * * * MOTION CARRIED, 6 Ayes and 1 Absent Absent Motion Motion was made for initiation of E - General Plan Update - MOTION Ayes * * * * * * CARRIED, 6 Ayes and 1 Absent Absent Commissioner Thomson asked if the Housing Element is a state mandate, and if the City could decide not to proceed with an update. Staff reported that the City has a housing element which has been certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Currently, there is a deadline of June 30, 1996 for a mandated update. However, there is some discussion as to whether that • mandate is in fact real based on recent actions of the legislation. Also being discussed is the possibility of extending that deadline one or two more years. The Planning Department would like to see this item initiated so that if the City decides it is in the best interest to proceed with an update process than we have the initiation already in force to use.. Staff will be discussing with the City Manager and the City Attorney the options on the mandated update. Commissioner Thomson stated that we get into situations where we are turning out reports and taking valuable staff time to keep up with mandates of the state government and perhaps we're being prudent in doing this, but what is our exposure if this is not done. Chairperson Ridgeway clarified that in asking for this to be initiated, staff does not have to take any action right now. Commissioner Thomson stated that we could slow this process down . and not use valuable staff time to initiate this for future use. • 17 COMMISSIONERS 0 \ 0 ij�\O@ I , n< I& CITY OF NEWPORr BEACH February 8, 1996 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Attorney Burnham stated that the worst case scenario would be that the mandate for revisions sticks and someone sues us alleging that we do not have a valid housing element, that the City's General Plan is out of compliance with state law. If that allegation is successfiAy litigated in couM a judge can enjoin land use activities in the City. Given this city's history with housing litigation and given the potential down side for not complying with provisions of the State Zoning and Planning Act, it is really prudent to at least initiate an amendment. There also may be some projects that may best be implemented through amendments to the housing element. You may recall that the Ford/Loral project was approved through a development agreement and Ford is obligated to contribute affordable housing in lieu fees up to approximately $2.5 million dollars. The housing element amendment may be, in fact, a vehicle for implementing the City's ultimate choice in that regard. fjgh�on Motion was made for initiation of F - Housing Element MOTION mw— * * * * * CARRIED 6 Ayes and 1 Absent Absent J* Item C Catanzarite/Summerhouse issue was then discussed. Attorney Burnham reported that he has been dealing with Mr. Catanzarite and the Summerhouse project components for the past couple of months. The subdivision parcel map process by Catanzarite was approved by the City Council. There is a comprehensive settlement agreement that is being negotiated that has been drafted that is approximately 90% complete involving the City, Cantanzarite and Summerhouse that will in fact make the Summerhouse project much easier to implement by eliminating a lot of grading that would otherwise have to occur. This settlement agreement is actually one of the good legal documents for the City because it does resolve a lot of outstanding issues. In that settlement agreement, the City commits to process a General Plan Amendment essentially validating what has already been done through the parcel map process which slightly modified the boundary of the two parcels. All we are doing is taking equivalent area of commercial and residential and simply changing the boundary along the edge of those two properties. 18 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Chairperson Ridgeway asked Attorney Burnham whether the City Couch has approved the subdivision of the residential lot into two lots. Mr. Burnham responded that the subdivision has been approved by the City Council. The settlement agreement has also been discussed, and, the Council has indicated its support for the concept. Chairperson Ridgeway asked if there is any way the Commission could approve the request for initiation of this General Plan Amendment and delete from it that portion of it for the subdivision? Staff answered that the project does not need a General Plan Amendment in order to establish the additional dwelling unit that would be on the lot. There is sufficient allocation in Corona del Mar to allow for that in any case. The only issue here is adjusting the boundary • between the commercial district and residential district. Commissioner Adams clarified that what is being asked is whether an initiation would be inconsistent with the Commission's previous position on this item. Attorney Burnham stated it would not be inconsistent. Motion Motion was made for initiation of C - Cantanzarite/Summerhouse - Ayes * MOTION CARRIED 6 Ayes and 1 Absent Absent ♦r* SUBJECT: Economic Development Committee item. 5 Chairperson Ridgeway asked staff if the date was set with the committee. Discus Discussion then ensued regarding potential meeting with the two committees. Chairperson Ridgeway will call Mr. IJdl to set up a late afternoon meeting. r *s • 19 Sion 4 COMMISSIONERS Oi\�`ti o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - A verbal report by the Acting Planning Director regarding City Council actions related to plamring - none b.) Verbal report by the Acting Planning Director regarding Outdoor Dining Permit, Specialty Food Permits, Modification Permits and Temporary Use Permit approvals - the following temporary use was reported: strawberry stand at northeast comer of West Balboa Boulevard and 21st Street, parking lot for Savannah's Hut. Also reported was one specialty food service use at 4341 MacArthur Boulevard ("Jambe Juice"). c.) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich reported that a joint meeting is requested and asked that Chairman ' Ridgeway contact Mr. Rush Hill to arrange time and date. d.) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee - none. e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Thomson asked for an inventory of specialty food uses that have been granted under the new Ordinance. This information is to include name, address, square footage and type of food service. C) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Chairman Ridgeway asked that the three members of the Commission give a status report on the Zone Code review. g.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioners Thomson, Ridgeway and Pomeroy will be absent at the next Commission meeting of February 22, 1996. ' 20 COMMISSIONERS 9� r MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1996 ROLL CALL I INDEX h) Discussion of staff report format - none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:50 p.m • *s MICHAEL KRANZLEY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION