The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/06/1986ROLL Present 0 Motion All Ayes Motion A4es MMISSIONERS REGULAR':PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE:* City Council Chambers p n TIME: 7:30 p.m. v n v m DATE: March 6, 1986 z c m y m z = 9 2 A z T I City 6� Newport Beach c z 0 o i O O x x I x x x x All Planning Commissioners were present. � r EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert T. Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Chris Dustin, Senior Planner Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x z z Minutes of February 20, 1986: Commissioner Koppelman advised that the subject Planning Commission Minutes should be amended to read that she abstained from the February 6, 1986, vote and not Commissioner Goff. Motion was made for approval of the amended February 20, 1986, Planning Commission Minutes. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Request for Continuances: James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No. 5, Use Permit No. 3179, regarding a private, no fee, commercial parking lot at 416 Larkspur Avenue be continued to March 20, 1986. Mr. Hewicker advised that a recommendation will be made by the Assistant City Attorney that Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) and Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement regarding Edgewater Place, Balboa, be continued after the public hearing has been opened for Item No. 3. xI I I I I I I Motion was made to continue Item No. 5, Use Permit No. 3179 to the Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 1986:. .Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * * x MINUTES Minutes of 2 -20 -86 Request for Continuance MMIS510NERS March 6, 1986 C O = C m r 9 m D PI 2 C a a +z r Q 2 a a 9 a T m l City of Newport Beach Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) (Review) (Discussion) Planning Commission review of a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of the existing Bubbles Balboa Club with on.sale alcoholic beverages and amplified live entertainment. The review is necessary to ensure that all conditions of approval of the original use permit have been met. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 189 -17, 18 (Resubdivision No. 713), located at 109 -111 Palm Street, on the southwes- terly corner of Palm Street and East Balboa Boulevard, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Bubbles Balboa Club, Ltd., Balboa OWNER:- Same as applicant ® James ,Newicker, Planning Director, stated that one side of the enclosure of the trash area remains to be installed, and that the materials for that feature have been ordered and will be installed as soon as they are delivered. u Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King & Associates, No. 1 Civic Plaza, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King advised that the blinking lighted sign in front of the subject building has been corrected, and that two of the three sides of the trash enclosure have been completed and the third side has been ordered and will be installed within a week. Mr. King added that the building permit required for the existing fence and the additional enclosure will be submitted within one week. Chairman Person advised that he observed that the blinking lighted sign has been corrected. -2- MINUTES INDEX Item No.l UP2045A No Action Necessary MMISSONERS March c, �9se " e o x > e _ C M m z c m y m z C a W o r 0 0 C . z m > � m City of Newport Beach s a Exception Permit No. 19 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of two future facility signs which exceed 200 sq.ft. each, on two lots located in the Bayview. Planned Community. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed signs to encroach 5 feet into required 10 foot front and side yard set- backs. LOCATION: Lots 2 and 3, Tract No. 12528, located at 2500 and 2550 Bristol Street, on the southeasterly corner of Bristol Street and (future) Bayview Place and the southwesterly corner of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street, within the Bayview Planned Community. ZONE: -- P -C APPLICANT: Design 2, Santa Ana OWNERS: J. M. Peters Company and Downey Savings and Loan, Newport Beach The.publia hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Gary Underwood representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr..- Underwood stated that the applicant concurs with the ;findings and conditions as set forth in Exhibit nA" The public hearing was closed in connection with this Motion IxI item. Motion was made to approve Exception Permit No. All Ayes 19, subject to the findings and conditions for approval in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed signs will be compatible with surrounding land uses; and will not interfere with the sight distances from automobiles or adjoining streets. 2. That the proposed signs will not have any signifi- cant environmental impact. -3- MINUTES Item No.2 EP 19 Approved X . C o a v = C m D m W 9 A Z r A m O m D n = 9 Z 9 = T 0 • March 6,1986 Newport Beach 3. The proposed signage and graphics are consistent with the character and design of the proposed Bayview Office Development. 4. That the proposed signs are intended to be tempo- rary in nature and will be replaced with a perma- nent sign program when the office construction is completed. 5. That the site location of the proposed signs have been changed so as not to encroach into any required setback areas. 6. That the granting of this exception permit will not be contrary to the.purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code, and will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing in the neigh- borhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and elevation. 2. That the applicant shall obtain building permits _,.for. the proposed signs prior to their installa- tion..'' 3. That the proposed signs shall be removed within 24 months. of the date of installation or within 30 days: after the completion of the proposed office iauildings, whichever date comes first, unless an extension is approved by the Modifications Commit- tee. 4. That exterior illumination of the proposed signs shall be permitted subject to the approval of the Planning Department. * x x -4- MINUTES INDEX A. Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of a commercial building and related parking structure known as Edgewater Place, on property located in the C -1 District. The proposed amendment includes a request to delete Condition No. 2 which consists of the fulfillment of all applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 797. AND B. Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement (Discussion) Request- to waive the requirement for a parcel map to create.a single parcel of land where twelve lots, a portion of one lot, a vacated portion of Edgewater Place, and a portion of a vacated alley, now exist. I I I I I I I I LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and a • portion of Lot 4, an unnumbered lot and a portion of a public alley proposed to be vacated, all in Block 3 of the Balboa Bayside.Tract; Lot 22 and 23, Block A of the Bayside Tract; and a portion of vacated Edgewater Place, located at 309 Palm Street, on the northerly side of East Bay Avenue between Palm Street and Adams Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Edgewater Place, Balboa OWNERS: Mark Howard, Don Franklin, Roland Vallely, Newport Beach Fx c o Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, advised that 9 > v m c z c m s m z M o a r 2 C C a N p; 0 0 0 M m o m D T T Z a a a z m m A. Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of a commercial building and related parking structure known as Edgewater Place, on property located in the C -1 District. The proposed amendment includes a request to delete Condition No. 2 which consists of the fulfillment of all applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 797. AND B. Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement (Discussion) Request- to waive the requirement for a parcel map to create.a single parcel of land where twelve lots, a portion of one lot, a vacated portion of Edgewater Place, and a portion of a vacated alley, now exist. I I I I I I I I LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and a • portion of Lot 4, an unnumbered lot and a portion of a public alley proposed to be vacated, all in Block 3 of the Balboa Bayside.Tract; Lot 22 and 23, Block A of the Bayside Tract; and a portion of vacated Edgewater Place, located at 309 Palm Street, on the northerly side of East Bay Avenue between Palm Street and Adams Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Edgewater Place, Balboa OWNERS: Mark Howard, Don Franklin, Roland Vallely, Newport Beach -5- MINUTES INDEX Item No.3 UP3122A Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement Continued to 3 -20 -86 Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, advised that because of a variety of issues such as legal interpretations, building issues, and zoning issues, staff has agreed to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 1986, with the purpose of having .. discussions between the applicant, staff, and the fee owners of the subject property in order to resolve some of the legal interpretations and other problems. Ms. Korade requested that this item be • continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 1985, and that the Planning Commission request that a1T "';iof' the interested parties meet in the City Attorney's office at their earliest convenience. -5- MINUTES INDEX Item No.3 UP3122A Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement Continued to 3 -20 -86 r: MMISSIONERS March 6, 1986 xx c o � F a v = y r v m z c m m z Z C Z W O r 0 0 Z Z Z 9 Z M m City of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner regarding ground lease, Ms. Korade replied that the application deals with five different parcels that are either owned in fee, or under a lease. Commissioner Turner stated his concern that the property owners should be represented by the applicant and if the property owners have not signed the applicant to be their representative, then they should authorize someone to represent them as their agent. Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant has a valid signed application on file. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King & Associates appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King stated that the applicant and the property owners are in agreement to continue the subject item and to meet with staff. Mr. Tim Paone, representing Mr. and Mrs. Roland Vallely, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated that Mr. and Mrs. Vallely agree to continue the subject item and to meet with staff. Mr. Phil Campbell, 413 Edgewater Place, appeared before the Planning Commission requesting information regarding a portion of the alley that has been vacated. Mr. Hewicker explained the process that the City must go through to vacate an alley, and how the alley would revert back to the adjoining property owners. Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended) and Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement to March 20, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. so MINUTES d s March 6,1986 MINUTES ,j}(,: t Beach A. General Plan Amendment 86 -1(A) (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, changing the designation for the Cannery Village area from a.mixture of "Recreational and Marine Commercial" and "General Industry" uses to "Recreational and Marine Commercial" uses on the bayfront sites, "Retail and Service Commercial" uses in the area northerly of 29th Street between Newport Boulevard and Villa Way, and a mixture of "Retail and Service Commercial" and "General Industry" uses for the remainder of the area. It is further proposed to change the designation for the McFadden Square area from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. Those existing areas designated for "Two- family Residential" and "Multi - Family Residential" uses are to remain unchanged. AND • 11111111 B. Amendment No. 8 (A) to the City of Newport Beach Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, changing the designation of the non - bayfront sites from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. It is further proposed to change the designation for the McFadden Square area from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. Those exis- ting areas designated for "Two- family Residential" and "Multi- Family Residential" uses are to remain un- changed: Amendments will also be required to Land Use Plan Maps No. 3, 8, and 9. WE C. Amendment No. 629 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, adding Chapter 20.63, the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, and amend- ing Districting Maps No. 3, 8, and 9, deleting the existing zoning districts and adding the S -P desig- nation; and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. LOCATION: Area generally bounded by 32nd Street on -7- GPA 86 -1(A) ndment 8..(A). the LCP/ AN � x ... C O x _ v 9 m z c C m s m = m S D z r x C a w p; 0 O O M m O m a m m Z p 2 9 2 n m d s March 6,1986 MINUTES ,j}(,: t Beach A. General Plan Amendment 86 -1(A) (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, changing the designation for the Cannery Village area from a.mixture of "Recreational and Marine Commercial" and "General Industry" uses to "Recreational and Marine Commercial" uses on the bayfront sites, "Retail and Service Commercial" uses in the area northerly of 29th Street between Newport Boulevard and Villa Way, and a mixture of "Retail and Service Commercial" and "General Industry" uses for the remainder of the area. It is further proposed to change the designation for the McFadden Square area from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. Those existing areas designated for "Two- family Residential" and "Multi - Family Residential" uses are to remain unchanged. AND • 11111111 B. Amendment No. 8 (A) to the City of Newport Beach Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, changing the designation of the non - bayfront sites from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. It is further proposed to change the designation for the McFadden Square area from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. Those exis- ting areas designated for "Two- family Residential" and "Multi- Family Residential" uses are to remain un- changed: Amendments will also be required to Land Use Plan Maps No. 3, 8, and 9. WE C. Amendment No. 629 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, adding Chapter 20.63, the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, and amend- ing Districting Maps No. 3, 8, and 9, deleting the existing zoning districts and adding the S -P desig- nation; and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. LOCATION: Area generally bounded by 32nd Street on -7- GPA 86 -1(A) ndment 8..(A). the LCP/ AN March 6, 1986 MINUTES the north; the Rhine Channel on the east; 19th Street on the south; and West Ocean Front, 24th Street and West Balboa Boulevard on the west. ZONES: From C -1, C -1 -H, C -O -Z, M -1, U, R -2, R -3, and R -4 to SP -6. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred the Planning Commission to a letter received from the Lido Isle Community Association dated March 5, 1986, signed by Barrie Egan -Auld, Administrator; a letter received from West Newport Beach Association dated March 4, 1986; a letter received from The Gilsand Company dated March 6, 1986, pertaining to Cannery Village Lots 411/413 30th Street; and a letter received from the McFadden Square Community Association dated March 6, 1986. • X 11 Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner, stated that the n intent of the Specialty Retail District is to encourage E a i x 1 a variety of compatible uses that will benefit the 9 entire area from' the concept of shared sales from pedestrians. He said that some of the public z a m y o ° m r ' ' T `, City of Newport Beach z a z z s z r m� 7 increase the level of pedestrian interest by providing the north; the Rhine Channel on the east; 19th Street on the south; and West Ocean Front, 24th Street and West Balboa Boulevard on the west. ZONES: From C -1, C -1 -H, C -O -Z, M -1, U, R -2, R -3, and R -4 to SP -6. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred the Planning Commission to a letter received from the Lido Isle Community Association dated March 5, 1986, signed by Barrie Egan -Auld, Administrator; a letter received from West Newport Beach Association dated March 4, 1986; a letter received from The Gilsand Company dated March 6, 1986, pertaining to Cannery Village Lots 411/413 30th Street; and a letter received from the McFadden Square Community Association dated March 6, 1986. • Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner, stated that the intent of the Specialty Retail District is to encourage a variety of compatible uses that will benefit the entire area from' the concept of shared sales from pedestrians. He said that some of the public improvements within Cannery Village are designed to increase the level of pedestrian interest by providing various amenities including landscaping, park benches, drinking fountains, all with a cohesive design theme. Mr. Gustin explained that the range of land uses that are permitted include all types of retail sales, and personal service establishments, and professional and business offices providing services directly to the public. Residential uses are permitted on the second floor where the ground floor is occupied by a permitted use, and restaurants, hotels and motels, bed and breakfast are permitted by securing a use permit. He said that all uses permitted in the Recreational and Marine Commercial and Retail and Service Commercial Districts are permitted within the Specialty Retail District with the exception of industrial uses. Mr. Gustin explained that industrial uses are not permitted primarily because they are inconsistent with the concept of providing a pedestrian oriented environment. • He added that the primary reason for establishing the retail core area on the periphery is to reduce the amount of vehicles driving through the area and me MMISSIONERS March 6, 1986 x �o In reference to the Local Coastal Program, Land Use m r v i s m a m s Plan, Mr. Gustin commented that 29 meetings were held c a u p; 0 0 M = M M m City of Newport Beach _ concentrating these uses in one area with the surrounding areas being used for support uses. Mr. Gustin stated that there is virtually no change between the range of land uses that are currently permitted within the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, the General Plan and the Zoning Code with the exception of the industrial uses within the Specialty Retail District. In referring to Historial Preservation, Mr. Gustin advised that the consultant who prepared the Environmental Impact Report reviewed the National Register of Historical Places, contacted the State Historical Preservation Office, and contacted the Newport Beach Historical Society. He cited that the Environmental Impact Report does address all of the historical and cultural resources of the area. In reference to the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, Mr. Gustin commented that 29 meetings were held by the Local Coastal Program committee, 9 public hearings before the Planning Commission, 9 public hearings before the City Council, and 2 additional public hearings before the Coastal Commission. He advised that the concept of visitor serving - marine oriented uses and visitor serving recreational commercial uses is the prime motivation behind the Coastal Act, and that all of these uses are incorporated in the Local Coastal Program, and as directed by the Planning Commission and City Council, the Specific Area Plan complies with all of those land uses and the intent behind the uses. In referring to Historial Preservation, Mr. Gustin advised that the consultant who prepared the Environmental Impact Report reviewed the National Register of Historical Places, contacted the State Historical Preservation Office, and contacted the Newport Beach Historical Society. He cited that the Environmental Impact Report does address all of the historical and cultural resources of the area. cm MINUTES Mr. Gustin advised that there have been additions made to the Public Improvement component. He stated that repairs of curbs, gutters and streets, and the reconstruction of sewers in Cannery Village have been added. Mr. Gustin advised that the aforementioned improvements are part of the City's on -going program, and that these are improvements that will be funded through the City's General Fund and the property owners will not be assessed. He cited that staff is considering an alternative to the widening of Newport Boulevard which involves the restriping of Newport Boulevard between 30th Street and 32nd Street, similar to the proposed restriping between 19th Street and 26th Street that would provide a third outbound lane without cm MINUTES necessitating the acquisition of buildings and right -of -way in that stretch of the roadway; however, he added that a portion of the existing building at the southeast corner of 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard would.have to be acquired, and that would be required only to provide a flare so that the roadway is aligned properly. MINUTES Mr. Gustin referred to the proposed Project 8: Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard intersection realignment, and staff's recommendation to delete Project 8. Mr. Gustin advised that staff is of the opinion that after reviewing the intersection over the past several years that an adequate change cannot be implemented that will result in a measurable improvement to the area. March 6, 1986 COMMISSK)NERS Mr. Gustin advised that Project 20 has been added: x x C o � Restriping Newport Boulevard between 19th Street and D 9 x 26th Street. He stated that this project would be an C 2 V O r o o I.E. m = T m i City of Newport Beach alternative to the realignment which would provide the necessitating the acquisition of buildings and right -of -way in that stretch of the roadway; however, he added that a portion of the existing building at the southeast corner of 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard would.have to be acquired, and that would be required only to provide a flare so that the roadway is aligned properly. MINUTES Mr. Gustin referred to the proposed Project 8: Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard intersection realignment, and staff's recommendation to delete Project 8. Mr. Gustin advised that staff is of the opinion that after reviewing the intersection over the past several years that an adequate change cannot be implemented that will result in a measurable improvement to the area. Mr. Gustin stated that staff is recommending the deletion of Project 6, the Pedestrian Walkway in Cannery Village; and Project 14, the realignment of Newport Boulevard/Balboa Boulevard resulting in the elimination of the island properties. He cited that Project 9, the McFadden Square Parking Facility has been recommended for deletion because the $3.9 million to provide .a parking structure in that area is an excessive amount of money for the benefit that would be received. Mr. Gustin referred to the potential areas of assessment districts, and he emphasized that the preliminary concepts is to show potential areas of benefit of the individual improvements, and that there is no definite decision made on the benefit areas. Mr. Gustin advised that Project 20 has been added: Restriping Newport Boulevard between 19th Street and 26th Street. He stated that this project would be an alternative to the realignment which would provide the third outbound lane from 19th Street to 32nd Street in conjunction with the widening of Newport Boulevard from 32nd Street to West Coast Highway. Mr. Gustin stated that staff is recommending the deletion of Project 6, the Pedestrian Walkway in Cannery Village; and Project 14, the realignment of Newport Boulevard/Balboa Boulevard resulting in the elimination of the island properties. He cited that Project 9, the McFadden Square Parking Facility has been recommended for deletion because the $3.9 million to provide .a parking structure in that area is an excessive amount of money for the benefit that would be received. Mr. Gustin referred to the potential areas of assessment districts, and he emphasized that the preliminary concepts is to show potential areas of benefit of the individual improvements, and that there is no definite decision made on the benefit areas. -10- Commissioner Koppelman referred to Project 8, Newport Boulevard/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Realignment, and asked Mr. Gustin to explain the statement within the staff report that "it cannot be improved without adversely impacting another element of the system ". Mr. Gustin 'explained that the concept was to increase • the number of public parking spaces within the vicinity -10- "MISSIONERS March 6, 1986 xx �o c 9 m z c m c y m z 2 0 O X O O 9 z.= T m J City of Newport Beach and the City's Traffic Consultant redesigned the concept two times: the first concept increased the amount of public parking by 27 %, gaining 81 parking spaces in the area, but adversely affected the ability of pedestrians and bicyclist to travel through the area. The Traffic Consultant was then asked to improve the pedestrian and bicycle flow through the area. The second concept resulted in a loss of public parking by 4 %, 13 parking spaces, which staff felt was not acceptable. Mr. Gustin concluded that the current design seems to be the best for all elements of the system. Mr. Henry Swenerton, 1106 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission as a member of the ad hoc committee during the drafting of the proposed Specific Area Plan, and as a past president of the Central Newport Beach Community Association. He referred to the February 20, 1986, Planning Commission meeting and comments made regarding tradition and the importance of preserving this area. He recommended that is the Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard intersection realignment be deferred, and be given a proper priority rather than be deleted as recommended, because of the dangerous conditions of the intersection. He further recommended that a parking structure will be needed in the future within the McFadden Square area, and not to delete but to change the priority. Ms. Judith Longyear, a member of the Board of Directors of the Lido Isle Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Longyear read a letter signed by the Administrator of the Lido Isle Community Association on behalf of the Board of Directors dated March 5, 1986, to the Planning Commission stating that the Lido Isle Community Association would like to go on record requesting that the Cannery Village and McFadden Square areas be separated in the proposed Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan; that "hotel" and "motel" use be deleted from the Cannery Village Plan; and that the Lido Isle Community Association would like to see a cost/benefit analysis based on costs and benefits to all Newport taxpayers, as well as an analysis for residents and land owners directly impacted by the proposed Plan. I I I I I Commissioner Koppelman , asked Ms. Lonqyear what specifically would the Lido Isle Community Association feel would be wrong if a hotel would be developed in -11- MINUTES 1%M. ISSIONERS March 6, 1986 C o In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, f C x 9 o> m Z c m y m a Ms. Longyear stated that the Lido Isle Community c z w a r o 0 i a z a m m City of Newport Beach a Cannery Village. Ms. Longyear replied that Cannery village is a small area and that the use of a hotel would demand larger streets and facilities; that the area is for the residents of Newport Beach; that a hotel is not necessary, and would encourage tourists to come to the area. Commissioner Koppelman cited that if a hotel would be approved in the area, that the use is one of the least traffic generating uses. Ms. Longyear replied that a hotel requires different kinds of support and would require uses that Lido Isle Community Association would not like for the area, specifically tourism and busses. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Gustin replied that there would no difference in the infrastructure if a hotel would be developed in the area. -12- MINUTES In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Ms. Longyear stated that the Lido Isle Community Association is in favor of the proposed Specific Area Plan with the exception of the aforementioned concerns. Mrs. Jean watt, representing SPON, appeared before the Planning Commission stating that SPON supports the "trend" traffic plan, which is a 3% traffic decrease over the existing traffic, vs. the "max" plan. She said that prior efforts made by SPON regarding traffic have been toward bringing land use into an acceptable level with the traffic service or bringing the traffic into consistency (LOS "D "). -12- MINUTES Mrs. Watt pointed out that a problem that she sees is stated in the Environmental Impact Report that reads: "analysis of the weekday PM peak hour conditions along Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard show no intersection currently operating with an ICU over 1.00, and the "worst" location, Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street, shows a three percent improvement as a result of the proposed plan ". She opined that the proposed plan is the "trend" plan, that the "max" plan is one that everything in Newport Beach always eventually arrives at the very maximum of what is allowed. She opined that 1.00 is LOS "F" that is an unacceptable level by any kind of standard, and a 38 decrease would be a grand goal for a Specific Area Plan. Mrs. Watt said that SPON applauds the effort of bringing the land use more in line with an acceptable level of service. The "trend" plan is what is wanted and what should be embodied in the General Plan. She opined that to make a decision based on a mere hope that the "trend" plan -12- MINUTES WAiSSIONERS March 6, 1986" MINUTES x A a 0 A f = y 9 2 c m r m a m z C_ 0 9 0 O CZ z m> r m Cat Newport Beach 2 INDEX will ensue is not realistic, that to make a decision based on the information in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) can also lead to surprises in actual situations later. She commented that she has not read Appendix "E ", but will do so. before the Specific Area Plan goes to City Council. She opined that the analysis is misleading, that the analysis is geared to how much reducing development from the maximum under present zoning will decrease impact, when "CEQA" actually states to look at how much worse the impacts will be over existing conditions. SPON does not feel that the EIR reveals the worst case situation for two reasons: the EIR assumes the off - season peak weekday period when actually the peak summer weekday period is what should be looked at. As a result, the ICU can be underestimated by a fair amount. In addition, she opined that the EIR does not seem to take under consideration the accumulative traffic, whereby she read from the EIR: "it should be noted that these volumes do not . include trips generated by other land uses in the vicinity of the study area and hence are lower than the actual volumes on these facilities ". She stated that SPON is registering suspicion that the project does, in fact, cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of service. She pointed out three problem intersections: Newport Boulevard/Via Lido; Newport Boulevard /32nd Street /; and Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard. She concluded her presentation by stating that an analysis should be done that shows a summer weekday peak hour traffic and the accumulative project traffic, and that then it would allow for a decision that would make for better consistency between land use and circulation, and then the "trend" plan may be the result. In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mrs. Watt replied that SPON has concentrated on the traffic analysis and not the concern for a hotel or motel; and in reference to the proposed outbound lane on Newport Boulevard during the summer months, she replied that there is a need for something above and beyond the outbound lane, that there is a certain lapse in the analysis. She opined that it is strictly a matter of land use as it is broken down, and what the "maximum" seems to apply could happen, and SPON believes will • happen if that is what is allowed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner regarding the widening of Newport Boulevard, Mrs. Watt -13- "NNISSIONERS March 6, 1986 X C O n Z r 9 m C m s m Z cz co of O O A Z 9=, m I City of Newport Beach opined that the analysis has been done based on the improvements; and she commented that no improvements seem to be acceptable. She commented that the flow of traffic and how it breaks down at intersections is the basic focus or "how it works ". She opined that the Quality of Life Committee should be concerned with "how it works ". She referred to the standards of traffic service, that the standards have to be described, that the level of service "D" is a very weak standard and the way the City is measuring it is not conservative and letting a lot of traffic go through, what happens to people in respect to quality of life is that traffic is stressful and time consuming. Mrs. Jan Debay, 5107 Seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and read the letter addressed to the Planning Commission dated March 4, 1986, from the West Newport Beach Association. The letter stated that the Board of Directors of the West Newport Beach Association unanimously voted to support the Cannery • Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan; that implementation of the proposed Specific Area Plan in accordance with the priority recommendations of the planning staff will provide guidelines for revitalization and development and cause improvement of the area which is long overdue; that the proposed zoning is appropriate for the area; and that public improvements are essential to community well being such as additional parking. Mrs. Debay commented that the West Newport Beach area is within the "sphere of influence" of McFadden Square and is heavily impacted by McFadden Square, and the beach traffic on Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Paul Balalis, 1129 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Balalis referred to the McFadden Square Community Association letter dated March 6, 1986, to the Planning Commission. The letter states that the McFadden Square Community Association supports the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. He opined that the "mixmaster" Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard realignment, McFadden Square Plaza, McFadden Promenade, McFadden Streetscape, and Newport Pier Restroom Relocation be addressed and implemented as a total • integrated project to coincide with the widening of the Channel Bridge. He said that by doing so, there would be a better opportunity to plan the improvements simultaneously, and that only one project, Project 11, -14- MINUTES INDEX March 6, 1986 Beach MINUTES INDEX has not been recommended by the City to coincide with the aforementioned projects, but that the restroom relocation would allow better flexibility for location of the new facility. Mr. Balalis complimented the staff and consultants for the work that has been done on the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan during the past seven years. He emphatically stated the positive attitude that has prevailed throughout the private sector in planning for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Balalis advised that the McFadden Square Community Association has not taken a stand regarding the parking structure, that the McFadden Square Community Association feels that at this point the parking structure would be a lot of money, but he opined that the City will have to take some measures in the future for parking. He suggested that maybe the City should not delete the project, but defer the parking structure to a future time, and that the City should take the lead and encourage the private sector to pay for the improvement. Chairman Person complimented Mr. Balalis for the newly formed McFadden Square Community Association. Mr. Balalis reflected that during the period that he was involved in the Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan, that the Coastal Commission encouraged visitor related facilities. He commented on the uniqueness of Cannery Village. He referred to the Lido Isle Community Association's concerns regarding a hotel, and he opined that hotels and motels could be developed of a low rise level, that hotels can be good atmosphere, and they can become good neighbors.of the general area. He recommended that hotels and motels be left in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Mr. Joe Rosener, 125 via Venezia, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rosener referred to a letter from the Lido Isle Community Association dated March 5, 1986, to Mr. Tom Crandall, District Director of the California Coastal Commission. Mr. Rosener explained that the letter asks a series of questions of the State Coastal Commission relating to what is prioritized within the area plan concept and specifically relates to hotels, and he opined that there will be a written answer to the Lido Isle Community Association. Mr. -15- . X x c o f a v = ti v r y m S C m y m Z C2 z 0 °; ° City X m o m a T r ° of a s z p z � m March 6, 1986 Beach MINUTES INDEX has not been recommended by the City to coincide with the aforementioned projects, but that the restroom relocation would allow better flexibility for location of the new facility. Mr. Balalis complimented the staff and consultants for the work that has been done on the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan during the past seven years. He emphatically stated the positive attitude that has prevailed throughout the private sector in planning for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Balalis advised that the McFadden Square Community Association has not taken a stand regarding the parking structure, that the McFadden Square Community Association feels that at this point the parking structure would be a lot of money, but he opined that the City will have to take some measures in the future for parking. He suggested that maybe the City should not delete the project, but defer the parking structure to a future time, and that the City should take the lead and encourage the private sector to pay for the improvement. Chairman Person complimented Mr. Balalis for the newly formed McFadden Square Community Association. Mr. Balalis reflected that during the period that he was involved in the Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan, that the Coastal Commission encouraged visitor related facilities. He commented on the uniqueness of Cannery Village. He referred to the Lido Isle Community Association's concerns regarding a hotel, and he opined that hotels and motels could be developed of a low rise level, that hotels can be good atmosphere, and they can become good neighbors.of the general area. He recommended that hotels and motels be left in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Mr. Joe Rosener, 125 via Venezia, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rosener referred to a letter from the Lido Isle Community Association dated March 5, 1986, to Mr. Tom Crandall, District Director of the California Coastal Commission. Mr. Rosener explained that the letter asks a series of questions of the State Coastal Commission relating to what is prioritized within the area plan concept and specifically relates to hotels, and he opined that there will be a written answer to the Lido Isle Community Association. Mr. -15- COMMISSIONERS a x c o � % y a x v m 2 c m r 9 a m z C z o o; 0 0 M = m > T m Z March 6, 1986 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL Rosener referred to the staff report whereby the staff report states that hotels are a priority item, and he opined that the converse is the real state of affairs, and hotels and motels are the lowest in the priorities of use of coastal rather than.a high priority item. He further opined that what is intended for the Rhine Channel are shipyards and repair facilities for true water dependent items, as the high priorities, and not hotels and motels. Mr. Rosener commented that McFadden Square proponents are in favor of one -half of what is being proposed and not necessarily in favor of the entire Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. He opined that splitting the two areas would be a desirable idea. Mr. Rosener stated that if true hotel development takes place, the development would change the character of the area, and then the improvements would go in to service a hotel, a different type of orientation than what the improvements would serve the • citizens of Newport Beach. Mr. Rosener cited that his intent is resident serving to the people of Newport Beach. Commissioner Koppelman asked Mr. Rosener what improvements he would envision that would go into Cannery Village as a result of a hotel that would not be a good thing for the area. Mr. Rosener replied that stores and services for people from outside of the community, that a visitor has different needs than a resident, and the character and type of development would be very different. He commented that what he has in mind would be a product that tourists take home with them, and he compared this product to the many visitors and kind of product that is seen in Lido Village. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Eichenhofer, Mr. Rosener stated that he envisions a 150 room hotel within Cannery village that would require support shops. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Rosener confirmed that he views Cannery Village as between 28th Street and 32nd Street. Mr. Tony Herman, owner of Bouzy Rouge Restaurant, 3110 Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. He commented that he is in support of the • Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, specifically the widening and restriping of Newport Boulevard that are needed to improve the environment. -16- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS March 6, 1986 xx Mr. Willis Longyear, Via San Remo, appeared before the c O Planning Commission. He stated that the residents of 2 C m y m Z M z o S 0 0 9 a M m Lido Isle are in favor of improving the streets, the 0 A= j City of Newport Beach sidewalks, and utilities in Cannery Village, but Chairman Person advised Mr. Herman that the City would work with Mr. Herman at the time of the proposed widening of Newport Boulevard between 30th Street and 32nd 'Street. Mr. Herman advised that a 30 foot encroachment into his property would basically render that building non - structural. Mr. Henry Swenerton, reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Swenerton submitted recent statistics of current and projected hotel room occupancy within Newport Beach, and he opined that the statistics would indicate that hotels would not be economically feasible within the area. Mr. Swenerton stated that Central Newport Beach Community Association supports the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Mrs. Dayna Pettit, Balboa, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Pettit stated her support of the adoption of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Mr. Tony Shepardson, 421 - 31st Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Shepardson stated that as a resident of Cannery Village he is in support of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, and he commented upon the need for a new parking structure somewhere within the vicinity. He commented that many of the streets, curbs, and sidewalks are hazardous, and should be on a high priority. He further commented that he would be willing to pay whatever the properties are assessed. -17- MINUTES INDEX Mr. Willis Longyear, Via San Remo, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the residents of Lido Isle are in favor of improving the streets, the sidewalks, and utilities in Cannery Village, but against bulldozing a community that can take care of itself. He opined that hotels would maximize the site for economic reasons, that there would be conventions, and bus loads of people throughout the area. He pointed out that hotels would raise the level of visitor activity to the extent that the current marine activity will have a difficult time staying in Cannery Village. He commented that he is against making the area a visitor center because of what will happen to what is • currently there. In response to Commissioner Eichenhofer's question regarding bulldozing, Mr. Longyear replied that a high -17- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS March 6, 1986 X C O O a o ` 2 C m a m m = hotel would be proposed, what height restriction and _ o L o 0 = m = = a m I City of Newport Beach pressure system like a hotel would require an environment that would grow, and will take the place of what is there now. He cited that there would be no need for marine repair facilities or antique shops. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Longyear replied that he has no feelings regarding a hotel out of the Cannery Village area. Chairman Person asked Mr. Longyear if he considers Cannery Village between 28th Street and 32nd Street. Mr. Longyear replied that he includes a previous boat parking lot within the Cannery Village area. ffun MINUTES Commissioner Eichenhofer asked staff that if a 150 room hotel would be proposed, what height restriction and parking would be associated with the hotel. In response to Commissioner Eichenhofer's question, Mr. Hewicker replied that a 26 foot height could accommodate a two story or perhaps a 3 story building, a Floor Area Ratio maximum of one times buildable area, and a parking standard that is higher than any other parking requirement within the City so far. He cited that a hotel developer would build under standards that are more restrictive than hotels have been previously. Mr. Gustin replied that based on 150 hotel rooms, as much as 45,000 square feet would be required for a surface parking facility, 30,000 square feet for the hotel rooms alone plus additional square footage for support areas, and view corridors, requiring a lot size of approximately 75,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet, or 2 1/2 to 3 acres. Commissioner Goff commented that based on 100,000 square feet, and the average size of a lot in Cannery Village, a hotel would require 37 Cannery Village lots. ffun MINUTES Mr. Derek Niblo, 121 Via Venezia, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Niblo recommended that Cannery Village be developed as a service industry area for the local residents. He commented that Cannery Village remain with a local feeling and local color. He opined that a hotel would be a totally different type of feeling and would bring more busses into the area. He recommended to allow Cannery Village naturally evolve, to encourage the development of Cannery Village but allow the development to naturally happen. , Chairman Person asked Mr. Niblo his impression of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan and ffun MINUTES MMISSIONERS a x c o fy xv x ,o r v m z c m y m z m C z M m 9 z r 0 p ; ° 0 ° m> w S ° r City Of Z a zX z r m R� March 6, 1986 Beach what he would take away from the plan except for the hotel /motel designation. Mr. Niblo replied that he like the Specific Area Plan and he complimented Chris Gustin. He cited that his primary concern would be the hotel and what the conditional use permit would allow. Chairman Person referred to the previously stated bus problem, and cited that he will be asking City Council or staff to submit a survey of the businesses in the Lido Village area. He opined that the bus passengers are going to the boats and to the marina. Mr. Niblo replied that the passengers are also going to Magic Island, and that three or four busses at a time are parking on Lido Island. Mr. Russ Fluter, 510 - 30th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fluter stated that he supports the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, that the staff and property owners have been able to compromise on a zoning that reduces the 11111111 density, and that streetscape signage should be a high priority. He requested that there be some development flexibility regarding setbacks or dedication on waterfront properties. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:07 p.m. and reconvened at 9:22 p.m. Commissioner Goff asked Donald Webb, City Engineer, if other design concepts for the mixmaster have been proposed. Mr. Webb replied that there are no solutions beyond that which is proposed. Discussion followed between Chairman Person and Mr. Webb regarding the mixmaster and what could be proposed for the intersection. In response to Commissioner Goff, Mr. Webb replied that the mixmaster project could be deferred, and if a development would occur that would significantly improve the situation, then that plan could be implemented. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding staff's recommendation that the mixmaster be deleted from the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, Mr. Webb replied that the economics of the mixmaster and what would be given in return did not make sense. • Mr. William Blurock appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Blurock stated that the McFadden Square Community Association's recommendation of high priority and total integration of Projects No. 8, 10, -19- MINUTES V\MISSIONERS March 6, 1986 �x C O O Mr. Joe Rosener reappeared before the Planning m C z c m a m z Commission. Mr. Rosener referred to Mr. Gustin's C z 0 o r 0 0 Z M z 9 z T m I City of Newport Beach aforementioned square footage statistics to develop a • 11, 12, and 13 includes the mixmaster as a key to the development of McFadden Square. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Blurock stated that there would be no problem if the mixmaster contained a stipulation that any additional studies would be kept within the existing right -of -ways. Mrs. Judith Longyear reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Longyear commented on earlier questions posed to her by Commissioner Turner that because the Board of Directors of the Lido Isle Community Association have not discussed the Villa Way street widening thoroughly she cannot make a statement regarding their position; however, she stated that the Lido Isle Community Association approves of the infrastructure improvements in Cannery Village. -20- MINUTES Mr. Joe Rosener reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rosener referred to Mr. Gustin's aforementioned square footage statistics to develop a • hotel, and he stated that these qualifications are what has caused many residents concern. Mr. Rosener pointed out an area within Cannery Village that could be developed for a hotel, and he further indicated that if a hotel would be developed that there could be off -site parking. Mr. Rosener opined that if there is a certainty that no hotel would be constructed within Cannery Village, why leave it in the use permit procedure. Mr. Rosener referred to a previous statement that the Coastal Commission would require a hotel or motel, and he asked that if the Coastal Commission replied that a hotel or motel are not necessary for the approval of the Specific Area Plan, would you agree to eliminate hotels and motels? Mr. Gustin replied that his contact with the Coastal Commission is the Newport Beach staff analyst, who has over the past three years worked with the Planning Department staff regarding all permit applications, all discretionary permits that have been through the City and all of the local coastal program amendments that have been processed through the City, and Mr. Gustin cited that the analyst knows the City's local coastal program as well as any staff person. Mr. Gustin stated that he has asked the analyst what his reaction would be if the City attempted to delete hotels and motels, and he replied that if the matter is left at the staff level that the Coastal Commission would oppose the idea. Mr. Rosener replied that the Coastal Commission -20- MINUTES in 'Sacramento has a different point of view to that of the representatives of the local Commission Commission. Mr 'Joseph Di Vincenzo, representing the owner of the Crab ker restaurant, appeared before the Planning `Commission. Mr. Di Vincenzo stated that he would be in favor,of deferring Project 8, the mixmaster, instead of deleting the project as recommended by staff. Mr. Tom Hyans, 217 - 19th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hyans stated that he supports the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, however, he does not support the recommendation to delete Project 8, the mixmater, or that the project be considered as a separate project. He commented that he supports the Newport. Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard realignment as indicated. I I I I I I I Mr. John Franco, 202 Via Palermo, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Franco commented that the • Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan is a good plan, and that future development would be a roll back from the development that is permitted now. He opined that the proposed Specific Area Plan would keep the atmosphere of the Cannery Village; that this would be a general implementation plan of how to go forward if anyone wants to go forward; that some of the Assessment Districts may not go; that the Specific Area Plan prevents development from going "haywire "; and that there is a logical control guide for improvements that are needed. Mr. Franco questioned the success of the economics and land feasibility to construct a large hotel structure. Mr. Franco proceeded with quotations that could be related to the analysis and work that has been done on the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan project, and in conclusion he said, "it may not please everybody but you have offended the most people with the least you can get away with and in a social community that is an awfully good achievement ". The public hearing was closed at this time. In response to Commissioner Goff's concerns regarding the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan • summary and analysis for future use, staff commented that the Municipal Code does not contain the environmental document that was published and packaged ten years ago for the Mariner's Mile Specific Area -21- MINUTES INDEX March 6, 1986 COMMISSIONERS C O h x Z C m y ," Z �= N or 9 Z M Z m Z I City of Newport Beach in 'Sacramento has a different point of view to that of the representatives of the local Commission Commission. Mr 'Joseph Di Vincenzo, representing the owner of the Crab ker restaurant, appeared before the Planning `Commission. Mr. Di Vincenzo stated that he would be in favor,of deferring Project 8, the mixmaster, instead of deleting the project as recommended by staff. Mr. Tom Hyans, 217 - 19th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hyans stated that he supports the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, however, he does not support the recommendation to delete Project 8, the mixmater, or that the project be considered as a separate project. He commented that he supports the Newport. Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard realignment as indicated. I I I I I I I Mr. John Franco, 202 Via Palermo, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Franco commented that the • Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan is a good plan, and that future development would be a roll back from the development that is permitted now. He opined that the proposed Specific Area Plan would keep the atmosphere of the Cannery Village; that this would be a general implementation plan of how to go forward if anyone wants to go forward; that some of the Assessment Districts may not go; that the Specific Area Plan prevents development from going "haywire "; and that there is a logical control guide for improvements that are needed. Mr. Franco questioned the success of the economics and land feasibility to construct a large hotel structure. Mr. Franco proceeded with quotations that could be related to the analysis and work that has been done on the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan project, and in conclusion he said, "it may not please everybody but you have offended the most people with the least you can get away with and in a social community that is an awfully good achievement ". The public hearing was closed at this time. In response to Commissioner Goff's concerns regarding the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan • summary and analysis for future use, staff commented that the Municipal Code does not contain the environmental document that was published and packaged ten years ago for the Mariner's Mile Specific Area -21- MINUTES INDEX Plan, lout that these documents are used continually for reference material today. Commissioner Koppelman asked for the procedure if the Planning Commission made a decision to put a project on a "hold basis rather than a priority. Mr. Hewicker replied that a project could be put in a continuing or a review category. Chairman Person suggested a priority of more than ten years. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, advised that the mixmaster improvement could be included into a continuing category on the same program with the widening' of Newport Boulevard; however, the McFadden Square parking structure could be placed in a category of a longer time period. Commissioner Turner suggested that a straw vote be taken on each project by priority. Chairman Person pointed out that the straw votes would be taken on the public improvement portion of the Cannery . Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Commissioner Turner advised that Priority I includes projects that would be prioritized immediately. The projects are: Project 3: Cannery Village, Parking Structure; Project 4: Cannery Village installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; Project 11: McFadden Square restroom relocation; Project 15: Cannery Village and McFadden Square Parking Management Plan which he cited would be a revenue generator and not a cost item. The estimated cost for Projects 3, 4, and 11 would be $2,315,000 of which $1,580,000 would come from the General Fund, $200,000 from the Parking Fund, and $535,000 from Assessment Districts. Commissioner Turner made a straw vote motion to approve Priority I because the aforementioned projects are parts of the infrastructure, parts of the responsibility that the City has in that area, and if these projects are approved they will tend to help lead additional improvements into the specific areas. He cited that the improvements are those that everyone wants to see in the long run. March 6, 1986 COMMISSIONERS In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn X c o regarding Project 11, the relocation of the McFadden • x y _ v m z C m y m = Square restroom relocation and the exposure of the dory C Z m 0 3 0 0 a = Z T I City of Newport Beach Z Plan, lout that these documents are used continually for reference material today. Commissioner Koppelman asked for the procedure if the Planning Commission made a decision to put a project on a "hold basis rather than a priority. Mr. Hewicker replied that a project could be put in a continuing or a review category. Chairman Person suggested a priority of more than ten years. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, advised that the mixmaster improvement could be included into a continuing category on the same program with the widening' of Newport Boulevard; however, the McFadden Square parking structure could be placed in a category of a longer time period. Commissioner Turner suggested that a straw vote be taken on each project by priority. Chairman Person pointed out that the straw votes would be taken on the public improvement portion of the Cannery . Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Commissioner Turner advised that Priority I includes projects that would be prioritized immediately. The projects are: Project 3: Cannery Village, Parking Structure; Project 4: Cannery Village installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; Project 11: McFadden Square restroom relocation; Project 15: Cannery Village and McFadden Square Parking Management Plan which he cited would be a revenue generator and not a cost item. The estimated cost for Projects 3, 4, and 11 would be $2,315,000 of which $1,580,000 would come from the General Fund, $200,000 from the Parking Fund, and $535,000 from Assessment Districts. Commissioner Turner made a straw vote motion to approve Priority I because the aforementioned projects are parts of the infrastructure, parts of the responsibility that the City has in that area, and if these projects are approved they will tend to help lead additional improvements into the specific areas. He cited that the improvements are those that everyone wants to see in the long run. -22- MINUTES In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding Project 11, the relocation of the McFadden • Square restroom relocation and the exposure of the dory fishermen site, Mr. Gustin replied that the area is not included within the Specific Area Plan, and that the -22- MINUTES Quality of Life Committee is currently trying to resolve the issue of cleaning up the area surrounding the dory fishermen. Chairman Person commented on. Project 15, the Parking Management Plan as being a Plan in conjunction with the Cannery Village parking structure. He stated that the development of a Parking Management Plan, could result in the creation of a separate parking district within Cannery Village to charge in -lieu fees based on the actual cost of a parking space, including both land and structure costs. He said that he believes that Project 15 is an important element of the Specific Area Plan, and that the Parking Management Plan should be a revenue source in that it will permit the City to revamp the in- lieu.system. Chairman Person stated that he would support the straw vote motion to approve Projects No. 3, 4, 11, and 15. March 6, 1986 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Turner pointed out that the current xx in -lieu fee is $150.00 per space and the fee is not in keeping with values within the City. He opined that the a v A in -lieu fees will be looked at more closely in the C 2 N p r o o i = a = M � m City of Newport Beach _ Quality of Life Committee is currently trying to resolve the issue of cleaning up the area surrounding the dory fishermen. Chairman Person commented on. Project 15, the Parking Management Plan as being a Plan in conjunction with the Cannery Village parking structure. He stated that the development of a Parking Management Plan, could result in the creation of a separate parking district within Cannery Village to charge in -lieu fees based on the actual cost of a parking space, including both land and structure costs. He said that he believes that Project 15 is an important element of the Specific Area Plan, and that the Parking Management Plan should be a revenue source in that it will permit the City to revamp the in- lieu.system. Chairman Person stated that he would support the straw vote motion to approve Projects No. 3, 4, 11, and 15. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she will support the straw vote motion to approve Priority 1. She specifically pointed out that Project 4, the installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks, would virtually eliminate all of the previous flooding problems, and that this would be a first step towards renovation in the Cannery Village area. Straw vote motion was voted on to approve Priority 1: Project 3: Cannery Village Parking Structure; Project 4: Installation of Cannery Village Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks; Project 11: McFadden Square Restroom Relocation; Project 15: Cannery Village and McFadden Straw Vote Square Parking Management Plan. STRAW VOTE MOTION All Ayes CARRIED TO INCLUDE PROJECTS 3, 4, 11, and 15. Commissioner Turner stated that Priority 2 recommends development of the projects within 2 years. Included in Priority 2 are Project 5: Cannery Village Streetscape estimated cost $663,000 funded by an Assessment District; Project 6. Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard Realignment within McFadden Square; Project 10: McFadden Plaza estimated cost $300,000 funded by an Assessment District; Project 12: -23- MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Turner pointed out that the current in -lieu fee is $150.00 per space and the fee is not in keeping with values within the City. He opined that the in -lieu fees will be looked at more closely in the future. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she will support the straw vote motion to approve Priority 1. She specifically pointed out that Project 4, the installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks, would virtually eliminate all of the previous flooding problems, and that this would be a first step towards renovation in the Cannery Village area. Straw vote motion was voted on to approve Priority 1: Project 3: Cannery Village Parking Structure; Project 4: Installation of Cannery Village Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks; Project 11: McFadden Square Restroom Relocation; Project 15: Cannery Village and McFadden Straw Vote Square Parking Management Plan. STRAW VOTE MOTION All Ayes CARRIED TO INCLUDE PROJECTS 3, 4, 11, and 15. Commissioner Turner stated that Priority 2 recommends development of the projects within 2 years. Included in Priority 2 are Project 5: Cannery Village Streetscape estimated cost $663,000 funded by an Assessment District; Project 6. Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard Realignment within McFadden Square; Project 10: McFadden Plaza estimated cost $300,000 funded by an Assessment District; Project 12: -23- MINUTES INDEX March 6, 1986 MINUTES INDEX McFadden Promenade estimated cost $112,000 funded by an Assessment District; Project 13: McFadden Streetscape estimated cost $120,000 funded by an Assessment District. Commissioner Turner cited that Project 5 would benefit the property owners within the Cannery Village area. He recommended that Project 8 be continued 'with a provision that any redesign of the mixmaster area must remain within the existing right -of -way, because he opined that if a government agency establishes an "X" across the private property and designates the property as a future development site, this would cast a cloud on the property, and there would be difficulty for lenders and people who are interested in remodeling their property. Commissioner Turner pointed out that wherever an assessment district is set up, the assessment district must receive an approval of the majority of the benefitting property owners in the area. Commissioner Turner made a straw vote motion to X approve Priority 2 which includes the aforementioned • C Projects No. 5, 8, 10, 12, and 13. 9 = Chairman Person suggested that Project 8, Newport H O r y m Boulevard/Balboa Boulevard realignment be prioritized 2 C m n m = with the general improvements of Newport Boulevard, z ; ° m which should be prioritized as soon as possible. He I City of Newport Beach _ , in 1988 -89 and he suggested that Project 8 could be INDEX McFadden Promenade estimated cost $112,000 funded by an Assessment District; Project 13: McFadden Streetscape estimated cost $120,000 funded by an Assessment District. Commissioner Turner cited that Project 5 would benefit the property owners within the Cannery Village area. He recommended that Project 8 be continued 'with a provision that any redesign of the mixmaster area must remain within the existing right -of -way, because he opined that if a government agency establishes an "X" across the private property and designates the property as a future development site, this would cast a cloud on the property, and there would be difficulty for lenders and people who are interested in remodeling their property. Commissioner Turner pointed out that wherever an assessment district is set up, the assessment district must receive an approval of the majority of the benefitting property owners in the area. Commissioner Turner made a straw vote motion to -24- approve Priority 2 which includes the aforementioned • Projects No. 5, 8, 10, 12, and 13. Chairman Person suggested that Project 8, Newport Boulevard/Balboa Boulevard realignment be prioritized with the general improvements of Newport Boulevard, which should be prioritized as soon as possible. He cited that the Arches Bridge is proposed to be widened in 1988 -89 and he suggested that Project 8 could be moved to Priority 3, to be developed two to five years, or his preference would be to move the Newport Boulevard projects up to Priority 2. Commissioner Turner commented that Project 8 should coincide with the design of the McFadden Promenade and McFadden Plaza, not necessarily the actual construction of the projects which may come at a later date. Commissioner Turner opined that the property owners may decide to vote against the McFadden Plaza and McFadden Promenade. Chairman Person commented that because the projects are not high budgetary projects, to include Project 16: restriping Newport Boulevard between 26th Street and 30th Street; Project 19: restriping Newport Boulevard between 30th Street and 32nd Street; Project 20: restriping Newport Boulevard between 19th Street and 26th Street to Priority 2. Commissioner Turner commented that he would not oppose the recommendation, • that the restriping would come after the widening of Newport Boulevard. Chairman Person amended the straw -24- • a.,, ..... ... March 6 ._..1986 " of NeWDort Beach vote motion to include Projects 16, 19, and 20 to Priority 2. Robert.Lenard suggested that the aforementioned Newport Boulevard projects could be included in Priority 2 or Priority 3, and that the projects should be together. He cited that Project 8 and Project 20 cover the same area so until there is a successful redesign of Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard, there would be no need to expend the $20,000 estimated for Project 20. He suggested that if the projects are moved to Priority 2 that the priority definition could be expanded to 3 years, but to indicate that the projects are a strong priority. Chairman Person stated the projects could be indicated that they are a strong priority, but by natural means, and to follow the Arches Bridge improvements that are so important. Commissioner Turner stated that he would have no problem with the recommendation to move Projects 16, 19, and 20 to Priority 2. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding keeping Newport Boulevard within the existing right -of -way, and the elimination of a corner, Mr. Gustin replied that they are two separate projects. He cited that the project that would require acquisition of right -of -way is Project 1, the widening of Newport Boulevard between 30th Street and 32nd Street, and the mixmaster Project 8 could be independent of Project 1. He stated that a problem would arise if the third outbound lane is created from 19th Street to 32nd Street, and not three lanes between 32nd Street and the Arches Bridge. He cited that the mixmaster should be realigned within the existing right -of -way, but by definition the widening of Newport Boulevard will require some acquisition of property to work. Chairman Person opined that the residents of Balboa Peninsula should be aware that the Planning Commission has given a high priority to the extra outbound lane on Newport Boulevard. A straw vote motion was voted on to approve Priority 2, to develop within 2 years or as close to 2 years as possible: Project 5: Cannery Village Streetscape; Project 8: Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard Realignment; Project 10: McFadden Plaza; Project 12: McFadden Promenade; Project 13: McFadden Streetscape; -25- MINUTES INDEX JC F C O O 9 9 2 9 m z c m y m z O S D z r S C Z m o i 0 0 0 A m O m D M T 2 L 2 y= T m • a.,, ..... ... March 6 ._..1986 " of NeWDort Beach vote motion to include Projects 16, 19, and 20 to Priority 2. Robert.Lenard suggested that the aforementioned Newport Boulevard projects could be included in Priority 2 or Priority 3, and that the projects should be together. He cited that Project 8 and Project 20 cover the same area so until there is a successful redesign of Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard, there would be no need to expend the $20,000 estimated for Project 20. He suggested that if the projects are moved to Priority 2 that the priority definition could be expanded to 3 years, but to indicate that the projects are a strong priority. Chairman Person stated the projects could be indicated that they are a strong priority, but by natural means, and to follow the Arches Bridge improvements that are so important. Commissioner Turner stated that he would have no problem with the recommendation to move Projects 16, 19, and 20 to Priority 2. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding keeping Newport Boulevard within the existing right -of -way, and the elimination of a corner, Mr. Gustin replied that they are two separate projects. He cited that the project that would require acquisition of right -of -way is Project 1, the widening of Newport Boulevard between 30th Street and 32nd Street, and the mixmaster Project 8 could be independent of Project 1. He stated that a problem would arise if the third outbound lane is created from 19th Street to 32nd Street, and not three lanes between 32nd Street and the Arches Bridge. He cited that the mixmaster should be realigned within the existing right -of -way, but by definition the widening of Newport Boulevard will require some acquisition of property to work. Chairman Person opined that the residents of Balboa Peninsula should be aware that the Planning Commission has given a high priority to the extra outbound lane on Newport Boulevard. A straw vote motion was voted on to approve Priority 2, to develop within 2 years or as close to 2 years as possible: Project 5: Cannery Village Streetscape; Project 8: Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard Realignment; Project 10: McFadden Plaza; Project 12: McFadden Promenade; Project 13: McFadden Streetscape; -25- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS March 6, 1986 x� Commissioner Turner referred to Priority 3, to be c o � x a y Im developed from 2 to 5 years. Priority 3 includes a v m z c m y m z c z w o r o o z T Project 7: Cannery Village Underground Utilities z m z m j City of Newport Beach estimated cost $1,000,000 funded by Assessment Project 16: Cannery Village - Restripe Newport Boulevard 26th Street through 30th Street; Project 19: Cannery Village-Re stripe Newport Boulevard 30th Street through 32nd Street; Project 20; McFadden Square - Restripe Newport Boulevard 19th Street through 26th Street. Straw Vote STRAW VOTE CARRIED TO INCLUDE PROJECTS 5, 8, 10, 12, All Ayes 13, 16, 19, 20. Commissioner Turner made a straw vote motion to approve Priority 3, two to five years, as follows: Project 7: Cannery Village Underground Utilities; Project 17: Cannery Village Repair curbs, streets, gutters; Project 18: Cannery Village Reconstruction of sewers. Chairman Person commented that he will support the straw vote motion. He cited that .Project 17, the repair of curbs, streets and gutters, should be considered an important matter and needs to be attended -26- MINUTES Commissioner Turner referred to Priority 3, to be developed from 2 to 5 years. Priority 3 includes Project 7: Cannery Village Underground Utilities estimated cost $1,000,000 funded by Assessment District; Project 17: Cannery Village Repair Curbs, Streets, Gutters estimated cost $265,000 funded by the General Fund; Project 18: Cannery Village Reconstruction of Sewers estimated cost $125,000 funded by the General Fund. Commissioner Turner asked staff if there would be a possibility that some of the funds could come from Public Utilities. Mr. Webb replied that the funding would be extremely doubtful because the City would have to designate the area to be considered for underground utilities, and funds have already been allocated to satisfy specific projects for the next three or four years. Mr. Webb explained that $150,000 to $200,000 are granted a year, and if the Planning Commission requested that all of the funds were to be funded by the Public Utilities Commission, that would be a five year allocation, and there would be some doubt if the entire Cannery Village area would qualify. Commissioner Turner asked when an assessment district receives approval by the property owners in the area who benefit, can the property owners approve all items, one item or none. Mr. Webb replied that there would be a question asked and a vote taken on the various different items for findings. He said an assessment district for streetscapes, for instance, would be a separate item and a majority vote would be necessary for the streetscape approval. Commissioner Turner made a straw vote motion to approve Priority 3, two to five years, as follows: Project 7: Cannery Village Underground Utilities; Project 17: Cannery Village Repair curbs, streets, gutters; Project 18: Cannery Village Reconstruction of sewers. Chairman Person commented that he will support the straw vote motion. He cited that .Project 17, the repair of curbs, streets and gutters, should be considered an important matter and needs to be attended -26- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS March 6, 1986 MINUTES 'o n Sewers. .STRAW VOTE MOTION CARRIED TO INCLUDE PROJECTS All Ayes f a a x 7, 17, 18. v Z c m 9 m a m = C z H o x O O 9 z m Gt Qf Newport Beach _ developed from 5 to 10 years. Priority 4 includes ROLL CALL I Project 1; Cannery Village - widening of Newport I INDEX to. Mr. Webb replied that the two to five year priority sets up a program whereby funds will be designated each year. Commissioner Turner opined that there' are some items that would be constructed simultaneously with the underground utilities. Straw vote motion was voted on to approve Priority 3: Project 7, Underground Utilities; Project 17: Repairs curbs, streets, gutters; Projectl8: Reconstruction of Straw Vote Sewers. .STRAW VOTE MOTION CARRIED TO INCLUDE PROJECTS All Ayes 7, 17, 18. Commissioner Turner referred to Priority 4 to be developed from 5 to 10 years. Priority 4 includes Project 1; Cannery Village - widening of Newport Boulevard 30th Street through 32nd Street estimated cost $2,600,000 funded by $880,000 from the General Fund, $860,000 from the Gas Tax, and $860,000 from the Arterial Highway Financing Program; Project 2: Widen Villa Way in Cannery Village estimated cost $1,200,000 • funded by Assessment District; Project 6: Cannery Village Pedestrian Walk estimated cost $1,000,000 funded by Assessment District; Project 9: McFadden Square Parking Structure estimated cost $3,900,000 funded by $1,000,000 of the General Fund, $300,000 Parking Fund, $2,600,000 Assessment District; Project 14: Realign Island - Cannery Village estimated cost $7,500,000 funded by $7,300,000 from the General Fund, $200,000 Gas Tax. Commissioner Turner commented that he would recommend that Project 2 not be included in Priority 3, that he fails to see the benefit to spend $1,200,000 to widen a small street within a short distance; that he supports the deletion of Project 6, the Cannery Pedestrian walk; that he does not support Project 9 because he does not like the idea of an unknown area for the parking structure and this puts a pall over the area which he does not support; that he does not support Project 14 to realign the Newport Boulevard islands because he opined that the realignment could require a redevelopment agency and in order to pay for a redevelopment agency there is a possibility of a high rise development in the Cannery Village area. • I I I ( I J I Chairman Person recommended straw votes for Projects 1, 1 2, 6, 9 and 14. -27- As a recommendation for approval of Project 2 to widen Villa Way, Commissioner Goff suggested that any of the projects that are subject for deletion and that would be funded by an assessment district, especially the projects within Priority 4 which is five to ten years off ',hot be deleted. He recommended that rather than these projects be deleted from the Specific Area Plan that the Planning Commission retain the projects based on what develops in the area within the next five to ten years when the property owners would have the option to participate in retaining the projects. Chairman Person stated that he will support Commissioner Goff's recommendation to retain Project 2. Commissioner xoppelman stated that she would support Commissioner Goff's position on the basis to adopt a • plan where certain improvements will be made with the help of the City, and that the Plan is being given to property owners within the area and the property owners can choose to implement the Plan or not to implement the Plan. She pointed out the difficulty involved in changing the Plan if the Planning Commission voted the Plan down, which would include public hearings if the property owners decided they wanted Villa Way widened. She opined that it is not in the 'best interest of the project to foreclose these particular projects that will be at the option of the property owners. She stated that she will support the widening of Villa Way and the McFadden Square Parking Structure. Straw Vote A straw vote was taken for Project 2 to widen Villa Ayes x x x x x x Way. STRAW VOTE CARRIED TO INCLUDE PROJECT 2. Noes x . Commissioner Goff stated that his previous statements regarding an assessment district funding item would also apply to Project 6, the Cannery Village Pedestrian Walk. Commissioner Turner stated that he opposes the inclusion of Project 6 in the Specific Area Plan because with the upgrading of the streets and alleys in is such a small area he does not see the benefits of a pedestrian walk, which would disrupt many property owners needlessly. He cited that the pedestrian walk came about as a result of a meeting with a consultant -28- MINUTES INDEX COM/V\ISSIONERS March 6, 1986 C o o x z c v m y m m a M a c z M 9 a r_ H o 9 O m 9 O O T Clt cif Newport Beach Z a z zz'u m ROLL CALL Straw Vote A straw vote was taken for Project 1 to widen Newport Ayes x x x x x Boulevard between 30th street and 32nd Street. STRAW Noes x VOTE CARRIED TO INCLUDE PROJECT 1. As a recommendation for approval of Project 2 to widen Villa Way, Commissioner Goff suggested that any of the projects that are subject for deletion and that would be funded by an assessment district, especially the projects within Priority 4 which is five to ten years off ',hot be deleted. He recommended that rather than these projects be deleted from the Specific Area Plan that the Planning Commission retain the projects based on what develops in the area within the next five to ten years when the property owners would have the option to participate in retaining the projects. Chairman Person stated that he will support Commissioner Goff's recommendation to retain Project 2. Commissioner xoppelman stated that she would support Commissioner Goff's position on the basis to adopt a • plan where certain improvements will be made with the help of the City, and that the Plan is being given to property owners within the area and the property owners can choose to implement the Plan or not to implement the Plan. She pointed out the difficulty involved in changing the Plan if the Planning Commission voted the Plan down, which would include public hearings if the property owners decided they wanted Villa Way widened. She opined that it is not in the 'best interest of the project to foreclose these particular projects that will be at the option of the property owners. She stated that she will support the widening of Villa Way and the McFadden Square Parking Structure. Straw Vote A straw vote was taken for Project 2 to widen Villa Ayes x x x x x x Way. STRAW VOTE CARRIED TO INCLUDE PROJECT 2. Noes x . Commissioner Goff stated that his previous statements regarding an assessment district funding item would also apply to Project 6, the Cannery Village Pedestrian Walk. Commissioner Turner stated that he opposes the inclusion of Project 6 in the Specific Area Plan because with the upgrading of the streets and alleys in is such a small area he does not see the benefits of a pedestrian walk, which would disrupt many property owners needlessly. He cited that the pedestrian walk came about as a result of a meeting with a consultant -28- MINUTES INDEX Straw Vote Ayes Noes Ix xi ix March 6, 1986 of Newport Beach to include everything in a shopping list, and that the pedestrian walk would also destroy the "funky" charm of the area. Commissioner Goff commented .that there would be an option to benefit the property owners until the time that a decision would be made by the property owners in five to ten years. A straw vote was taken for Project 6, Cannery Village Pedestrian Walk. STRAW VOTE DELETED PROJECT 6. Chairman Person advised that he would vote to delete Project .9, in Priority 4, the McFadden Square Parking Structurs.y but that he would vote the project into the addtign'',bf Priority S, . a time frame of more than 10 years. He cited that he would recommend that the project be developed on public property. 1. Commissioner Turner stated that he would support • Chairman Person's position if the parking structure would be limited to development on existing public property. Discussion followed between Chairman Person, Commissioner Turner and Commissioner Goff regarding the location of the public property for the proposed parking structure. Chairman Person suggested the possibility of a parking structure in the median after the realignment of Newport Boulevard. Commissioner Koppelman commented that she would not want to limit the parking structure to public property which would exclude a private landowner from developing a parking structure. Commissioner Goff stated that five to ten years from now is too far away to accurately foresee and preclude any option available now. He stated that he will vote to retain the McFadden Square Parking Structure as a Priority 4 item as presented. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support Commissioner Goff's position. Chairman Person stated that he would also support Commissioner Goff's decision. Commissioner Turner asked how staff would show the property owners where a parking structure would be developed. Mr. Hewicker stated that the designation . would remain as is on the Specific Area Plan now. He said that "P" within McFadden Square would indicate that at some future time there will be a parking structure in that area but not necessarily on that -29- MINUTES INDEX x 0 c o n m 9 x z c m a m Z M s m Z r m x Z 0 O r O O m> Z m Z 9 Z o Straw Vote Ayes Noes Ix xi ix March 6, 1986 of Newport Beach to include everything in a shopping list, and that the pedestrian walk would also destroy the "funky" charm of the area. Commissioner Goff commented .that there would be an option to benefit the property owners until the time that a decision would be made by the property owners in five to ten years. A straw vote was taken for Project 6, Cannery Village Pedestrian Walk. STRAW VOTE DELETED PROJECT 6. Chairman Person advised that he would vote to delete Project .9, in Priority 4, the McFadden Square Parking Structurs.y but that he would vote the project into the addtign'',bf Priority S, . a time frame of more than 10 years. He cited that he would recommend that the project be developed on public property. 1. Commissioner Turner stated that he would support • Chairman Person's position if the parking structure would be limited to development on existing public property. Discussion followed between Chairman Person, Commissioner Turner and Commissioner Goff regarding the location of the public property for the proposed parking structure. Chairman Person suggested the possibility of a parking structure in the median after the realignment of Newport Boulevard. Commissioner Koppelman commented that she would not want to limit the parking structure to public property which would exclude a private landowner from developing a parking structure. Commissioner Goff stated that five to ten years from now is too far away to accurately foresee and preclude any option available now. He stated that he will vote to retain the McFadden Square Parking Structure as a Priority 4 item as presented. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support Commissioner Goff's position. Chairman Person stated that he would also support Commissioner Goff's decision. Commissioner Turner asked how staff would show the property owners where a parking structure would be developed. Mr. Hewicker stated that the designation . would remain as is on the Specific Area Plan now. He said that "P" within McFadden Square would indicate that at some future time there will be a parking structure in that area but not necessarily on that -29- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS March 6, 1986 MINUTES xx c o � F a 9 A v c m y m z MM z a z r m City of Newport Beach - ROLL z N O i o o ROLL CALL I I I I I I I INDEX specific piece of property. Commissioner Turner opined that such designations on maps cause uncertainty and many problems for lenders and property owners. . Chairman Person suggested that the designated "P" be removed from the present location and to draw a line to the McFadden Square area. Commissioner Turner stated that the City owes the property owner to make a decision within a reasonable period of time. Commissioner Goff opined that for every potential buyer that is scared away by the prospect of their property being turned into a parking lot there would be another buyer attracted to the area because .there may be an improved parking situation somewhere near. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney replied that a General Plan Amendment would not be sufficient for inverse condemnation; however, any future action could be sufficient for such an action to be commenced. She stated that the opinion of the City 11 I I I I Attorney's office does not preclude filing of a law suit. Chairman Person requested that as part of the Project 9 straw vote to retain the McFadden Square Parking Structure, that the "P" be removed from the maps of Cannery Village and McFadden Square. Chairman Person stated that the aforementioned recommendation of public property would be withdrawn, that the project would be as is in Priority 4. Mr. Lenard commented that there is no reason that the "P" cannot be left off of the map for the McFadden Square Parking Structure since there is no indication of where the parking structure would be; however, he recommended that there is an indication of where the parking structure will be within Cannery Village and he recommended that the "P" remain. Chairman Person advised that the straw vote reflects the removal of the "P" designation in reference to any location of the McFadden Square Parking Structure from any map within the Specific Area Plan ". Straw vote taken for Project 9, McFadden Square Parking Structure. STRAW VOTE RETAINED PROJECT 9. In reference to Project 14, the realignment of the INewport Boulevard islands, Chairman Person commented -30- MMISSIONERSI March 6, 1986 that he has felt that the islands had the effect of creating a "cork at the top of a bottle" in terms of traffic on Newport Boulevard, and he commented that after discussing the matter with the staff members he no longer holds that opinion- He said that he still feels that the turning in and out of driveways on both sides of Newport Boulevard on a one -way street has to create some sort of an interruption in the traffic flow. He commented that he has a concern about some of the businesses in the islands and he looks at their viability, for instance, how some of the businesses survive with inadequate parking. He opined that he views the island as one of the mistakes that the planners made many years ago. He stated that he will support the deletion of Project 14 to realign island as a project from the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Commissioner Goff stated the island was a planning mistake many years ago; however, he cited that the mistake is not worth $7,500,000 to rectify. S9 Vote Straw vote was taken for Project 14, Realign Island, All Noes Priority 4. STRAW VOTE DELETED PROJECT 14. Chairman Person pointed out that the straw votes only reflect the preference of the Planning Commission in terms of the public improvements. Motion x Motion was made to approve the Environmental Document subject to the findings in Exhibit "F ", recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment - 86 -1(A), Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan Amendment No. 8, and Amendment No. 629 incorporating the straw votes. Commissioner Eichenhofer requested to change her straw vote of Project 1, to widen Newport Boulevard between 30th Street and 32nd Street, Priority 4, after hearing Commissioner Goff's previous explanation. Motion was Motion x made to reconsider the straw,vote of Project 1. Motion All Ayes voted on, MOTION CARRIED. xx A straw vote was taken for Project. 1, Widen Newport Straw Vote f Boulevard between 30th Street to 32nd Street, Priority s v x C v , v m z c m a m z Z m o m z T m City of Newport Beach zz z az+i m that he has felt that the islands had the effect of creating a "cork at the top of a bottle" in terms of traffic on Newport Boulevard, and he commented that after discussing the matter with the staff members he no longer holds that opinion- He said that he still feels that the turning in and out of driveways on both sides of Newport Boulevard on a one -way street has to create some sort of an interruption in the traffic flow. He commented that he has a concern about some of the businesses in the islands and he looks at their viability, for instance, how some of the businesses survive with inadequate parking. He opined that he views the island as one of the mistakes that the planners made many years ago. He stated that he will support the deletion of Project 14 to realign island as a project from the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Commissioner Goff stated the island was a planning mistake many years ago; however, he cited that the mistake is not worth $7,500,000 to rectify. S9 Vote Straw vote was taken for Project 14, Realign Island, All Noes Priority 4. STRAW VOTE DELETED PROJECT 14. Chairman Person pointed out that the straw votes only reflect the preference of the Planning Commission in terms of the public improvements. Motion x Motion was made to approve the Environmental Document subject to the findings in Exhibit "F ", recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment - 86 -1(A), Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan Amendment No. 8, and Amendment No. 629 incorporating the straw votes. Commissioner Eichenhofer requested to change her straw vote of Project 1, to widen Newport Boulevard between 30th Street and 32nd Street, Priority 4, after hearing Commissioner Goff's previous explanation. Motion was Motion x made to reconsider the straw,vote of Project 1. Motion All Ayes voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -31- MINUTES INDEX A straw vote was taken for Project. 1, Widen Newport Straw Vote Boulevard between 30th Street to 32nd Street, Priority A 4. STRAW VOTE RETAINED PROJECT 1. *es Commissioner Goff commented that he has been on the Planning Commission for four years and the experience -31- MINUTES INDEX "A MISSIONERS x x c o Chairman Person stated that he will support the motion. 2 c m D m = He stated that for the first time the City is taking a `Z A m 0 0 °i ° o m a m Z m ° City of zA z aa'" m March 6, 1986 Beach has been a positive one. He stated that the opportunity to support this motion, is to date, the very high point of his tenure on the Planning Commission. MINUTES Chairman Person cited the issue of hotels. He said that he cannot see the size of a hotel suggested by the citizens speaking out as possibly being allowed in this area, and the elimination of hotels is contrary to the goals stated in the Recreational and Marine Commercial District of the Local Coastal Program. Motion voted on to approve the Environmental Document, recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 86 -1(A), Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan Amendment No. 8, and approve Amendment No. 629 incorporating the straw votes and subject to the po I I es findings listed below. MOTION CARRIED. -32- Chairman Person stated that he will support the motion. He stated that for the first time the City is taking a look at some of the older parts of town and that there is an importance to do that. He cited that he has lived on Lido Isle and the Balboa Peninsula, and he understands and knows the problems that the residents are faced with, and for the first time the City is saying to. the fulltime residents on the Balboa Peninsula, "we will try to give some relief to the outbound traffic problem on Saturday and Sunday afternoons rather than letting the traffic go as it has ". He stated that he sees the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan as an alternative to letting the area go as the area has for a number of more years, and perhaps looking at redevelopment. Chairman Person cited that the Specific • Area Plan encourages private redevelopment of property by private property owners by the City for good reason: taking the "bull by the horns" and making some public improvements that are needed. He commented that the alternative to that is something he does not want, and that is a redevelopment agency to start taking other people's property. He said that the subject Specific Area Plan is an important step, and an attempt by the City to say that we are going to try and do the development ourselves and the property owners will do the development themselves. He cited that for that reason he will support the Cannery village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Chairman Person cited the issue of hotels. He said that he cannot see the size of a hotel suggested by the citizens speaking out as possibly being allowed in this area, and the elimination of hotels is contrary to the goals stated in the Recreational and Marine Commercial District of the Local Coastal Program. Motion voted on to approve the Environmental Document, recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 86 -1(A), Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan Amendment No. 8, and approve Amendment No. 629 incorporating the straw votes and subject to the po I I es findings listed below. MOTION CARRIED. -32- �o f m v z c m > m m m m z r m v m O m> a 2 9 Z y= T ROLL March 6, 1986 4y# Newport Beach A. -- .ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Approve the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan; recommend that the City Council certify the Environ- mental 'Document as complete and make the Findings Iiste'd. below: FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of this environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on the project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures 0 11111111 discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86 -1 Adopt Resolution No. 1135 recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 86 -1(A). C. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO.8 Adopt Resolution No. 1136 recommending to the City Council approval of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan Amendment No. 8. D. AMENDMENT NO. 629 Recommend to City Council the approval of Amendment No. 629, amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, adding Chapter 20.63, the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, and amending Districting Maps, Nos. 3, 8, and 9, deleting the :existing zoning districts and adding the S -P designation. * • x -33- MINUTES INDEX i Motion All Ayes. x March 6, 1986 cif. Newport Beach The 'I" Commission recessed at 10:50 p.m. and reconvened at 10:55 p.m. Use:P.ei^mit No. 3179 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a private, no fee, commercial parking lot on property located in the R -2`.- District which is adjacent to property located in the C -1 District. LOC1sTZON Lot 12, Block 438, Corona del Mar, located at 416 Larkspur Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Larkspur Avenue, between East Coast Highway and Second Avenue, in Corona del Mar. APPLICANT: Mike Franklin, Corona del Mar OWNER: Franklin Inter Vivos Trust, Corona del Mar Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3179 to the Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x t Use Permit No. 3188 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to establish a nighttime restaurant with on -sale beer and wine and a take -out restaurant estab- lishment on property located in the C -1 District, where a take -out restaurant (Papagayo's) previously existed. The proposal also includes a request to approve an informal off -site parking agreement for the additional parking required for the nighttime dinner operation, and .a request to waive all of the required off - street parking spaces in conjunction with the daytime use on the property. LOCATION: Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 5, Balboa Tract, located at 2091 Palm Street, on the southwesterly corner of Palm Street and East Bay Avenue, in Central Balboa. ZONE C -1 -34- MINUTES INDEX 1 Continued to 3 -20 -86 Item No.6 Approved C O A V z c C M m m z m A A z a r x C a m p; 0 0 0 a Z A z m 9 2 i m x March 6, 1986 cif. Newport Beach The 'I" Commission recessed at 10:50 p.m. and reconvened at 10:55 p.m. Use:P.ei^mit No. 3179 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a private, no fee, commercial parking lot on property located in the R -2`.- District which is adjacent to property located in the C -1 District. LOC1sTZON Lot 12, Block 438, Corona del Mar, located at 416 Larkspur Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Larkspur Avenue, between East Coast Highway and Second Avenue, in Corona del Mar. APPLICANT: Mike Franklin, Corona del Mar OWNER: Franklin Inter Vivos Trust, Corona del Mar Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3179 to the Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 1986. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x t Use Permit No. 3188 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to establish a nighttime restaurant with on -sale beer and wine and a take -out restaurant estab- lishment on property located in the C -1 District, where a take -out restaurant (Papagayo's) previously existed. The proposal also includes a request to approve an informal off -site parking agreement for the additional parking required for the nighttime dinner operation, and .a request to waive all of the required off - street parking spaces in conjunction with the daytime use on the property. LOCATION: Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 5, Balboa Tract, located at 2091 Palm Street, on the southwesterly corner of Palm Street and East Bay Avenue, in Central Balboa. ZONE C -1 -34- MINUTES INDEX 1 Continued to 3 -20 -86 Item No.6 Approved 'VIMISSIONERS J! ' ' °' March 6, 1986 ' xx c o � _ C m r v m C Y m 0; 0 0 C A z M Z M m I City of Newport Beach APPLICANT: Opaso Vachirachatchot, Balboa OWNER: Estate of Albert Gilbert, Security Pacific Bank, Administrator, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, recommended that Condition No. 9 be amended to include the following: "In the event that the off -site parking lot is lost to the restaurant use, the applicant shall notify the Planning Director in writing, and close the nighttime operation of the restaurant facility until an amended off -site parking agreement is approved by the City ". Mr. Laycock explained that the purpose of the amended condition gives the City a guarantee that if the applicant is not able to maintain the informal parking agreement after one year, he will have to close the restaurant facility at night or get additional parking at another location. • Staff recommended that Condition No. 11 be amended to state that "the applicant shall obtain all required building permits and make all required corrections to the existing structure in order to comply with applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code ". Mr. Laycock explained that the purpose of the modified condition is that the applicant may not have to revise the entire dining room floor as previously required, and that there may be other ways to meet the Uniform Building Code, such as a ramp on the outside of the building. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander regarding the take -out restaurant not having a trash compactor, staff replied that the subject restaurant is not a typical take -out restaurant where there would be a lot of paper items thrown on the ground, and that the existing kitchen does not include a trash compactor. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". • Commissioner Winburn asked why Condition No. 6 requiring a washout area for the restaurant trash containers and Condition No. 7 requiring grease interceptors have been included in the subject use -35- MINUTES INDEX March 6, 1986 Mr. Hewicker asked how a customer going to the take -out restaurant knows that there would be available parking in the bank parking lot. Mr. King replied that the applicant has not addressed that issue at this time, but the applicant has suggested that signs could be posted on the window of the subject restaurant facility or on the Class of '47 Restaurant building wall on Palm Street. Mr. King stated that the applicant would be willing to cooperate with any signage directions that staff may recommend. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3188 subject Motion x to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including All Ayes amended Condition No. 9 regarding off -site parking, Condition No. 11 regarding building permit requirements, and Condition No. 17 regarding signs indicating where the available parking is located for the subject restaurant facility. -36- MINUTES �C F permit, and were they not included in Use Permit No. 3041 dated July 22, 1983? Mr. Laycock replied that the 9 V Z y V r V m and grease interceptors which were not required for the M= W osoof T r previous take -out restaurant on the subject site. M a = City Y of Newport P Beach z regarding the trash compactor, Mr. King replied that Mr. Hewicker asked how a customer going to the take -out restaurant knows that there would be available parking in the bank parking lot. Mr. King replied that the applicant has not addressed that issue at this time, but the applicant has suggested that signs could be posted on the window of the subject restaurant facility or on the Class of '47 Restaurant building wall on Palm Street. Mr. King stated that the applicant would be willing to cooperate with any signage directions that staff may recommend. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3188 subject Motion x to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including All Ayes amended Condition No. 9 regarding off -site parking, Condition No. 11 regarding building permit requirements, and Condition No. 17 regarding signs indicating where the available parking is located for the subject restaurant facility. -36- MINUTES permit, and were they not included in Use Permit No. 3041 dated July 22, 1983? Mr. Laycock replied that the Building. Department is now requiring the washout area and grease interceptors which were not required for the previous take -out restaurant on the subject site. In 'response to Commissioner Kurlander's question regarding the trash compactor, Mr. King replied that this is a different type of take -out restaurant operation, and that there is an existing trash receptacle immediately outside of the rear door. Mr. King said that presently the trash is put into plastic bags and placed inside trash containers. He cited that one of the doors of the trash enclosure is missing and will be replaced. Commissioner Eichenhofer asked if the twelve parking spaces could be marked in the Great American First Savings. Bank parking lot so that the parking spaces will not be used by the Tale of the Whale patrons or • the Balboa Pavilion. Mr. King replied that the subject bank has requested that the parking spaces not be specifically marked with a restaurant designation. Mr. Hewicker asked how a customer going to the take -out restaurant knows that there would be available parking in the bank parking lot. Mr. King replied that the applicant has not addressed that issue at this time, but the applicant has suggested that signs could be posted on the window of the subject restaurant facility or on the Class of '47 Restaurant building wall on Palm Street. Mr. King stated that the applicant would be willing to cooperate with any signage directions that staff may recommend. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3188 subject Motion x to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including All Ayes amended Condition No. 9 regarding off -site parking, Condition No. 11 regarding building permit requirements, and Condition No. 17 regarding signs indicating where the available parking is located for the subject restaurant facility. -36- MINUTES March 61 1986' x 0 A F p o = C a v m z c m y m a Z a = T m City of Newport Beach C a N O 0 0 ROLL CALL FINDINGS: 1.. That the proposed full service and take -out restaurants are consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and are compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. ,That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities, and a portion of the required off - street parking spaces will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the subject property is an existing developed site. • 4. That the applicant has provided an adequate number of nighttime parking spaces on an informal basis, in the Great American First Savings Bank parking lot, on the southeasterly corner of East Bay Avenue and Palm Street. 5. That the waiver of a portion of the required parking spaces for the proposed take -out restau- rant will not be detrimental to the area inasmuch as said use will be servicing people who are working, visiting or living in the Central Balboa Area and that said use is not a destination use which will generate a parking demand of its own. 6. That the proposed off -site parking area is so located as to be useful in connection with the nighttime restaurant facility inasmuch as the parking lot is directly across Palm Street from the restaurant site. 7. That parking on said off -site lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 8. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3188 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimen- tal 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. -37- MINUTES INDEX ate', CONDITIONS: March 61 1986' MINUTE5 t Beach INDEX 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted below. . 2. That the development standards related to a portion of the required off - street parking spaces for the take -out restaurant and parking lot illumination, building setbacks, circulation, walls, landscaping and utility requirements for the entire project are waived. 3. On -sale beer and wine shall be permitted in conjunction with the full service restaurant but off -sale shall not be permitted. 4. That all signs shall conform with Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. co n f a v = m 2 c s m Z m a a Z - 0 x I 2 W a; 0 0 A m O m a n Z L z a Z m ate', CONDITIONS: March 61 1986' MINUTE5 t Beach INDEX 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted below. . 2. That the development standards related to a portion of the required off - street parking spaces for the take -out restaurant and parking lot illumination, building setbacks, circulation, walls, landscaping and utility requirements for the entire project are waived. 3. On -sale beer and wine shall be permitted in conjunction with the full service restaurant but off -sale shall not be permitted. 4. That all signs shall conform with Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -38- 5. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control odors and smoke. 6. That a washout area for the restaurant trash containers be provided in such a way as to insure direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the bay or storm drains if required by the Build- ing Department. 7. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code if required by the Building Depart- ment. 8. That all trash containers shall be screened from view and from adjacent properties and from the .public alley or street. -38- 9. That the applicant shall provide, on an informal basis, twelve off -site parking spaces in the -Great American First Savings Bank parking lot located on Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 117 -24 (Resubdivision No. 566) at 600 East Balboa Boulevard, for the duration of the subject take -out restaurant use. Said parking shall be for the nighttime, full service restaurant only. -38- In the event that the off -site parking lot is lost to the restaurant use, the applicant shall notify `.`t fie Planning Director in writing, and close the nighttime operation of the restaurant facility until an amended off -site parking agreement is approved by the City. 10. That the hours of operation of the take -out restaurant shall be limited to the hours between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily and the full service restaurant's hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily. 11. The applicant shall obtain all required building permits and make all required corrections to the existing structure in order to comply with applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code. • 12. That three (3) in -lieu parking spaces shall be purchased from the City on an annual basis for the duration of the take -out restaurant use, and the annual fee for said parking shall be in accordance with Section 12.44.125 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 13. That all previous conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3041 shall be null and void. 14. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 16. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as 4pecified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport BBSeh- ,Municipal Code. _ • 17. That appropriate signs shall be provided on the .restaurant site indicating that twelve parking spaces are available for the restaurant use at night in the Great American First Savings Bank parking lot, located at 600 East Balboa Boulevard. -39- # March 6, 1986 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES C o O 2 z c m a m z m a a a r Q z z p= p z T m C.t + Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX In the event that the off -site parking lot is lost to the restaurant use, the applicant shall notify `.`t fie Planning Director in writing, and close the nighttime operation of the restaurant facility until an amended off -site parking agreement is approved by the City. 10. That the hours of operation of the take -out restaurant shall be limited to the hours between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily and the full service restaurant's hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily. 11. The applicant shall obtain all required building permits and make all required corrections to the existing structure in order to comply with applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code. • 12. That three (3) in -lieu parking spaces shall be purchased from the City on an annual basis for the duration of the take -out restaurant use, and the annual fee for said parking shall be in accordance with Section 12.44.125 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 13. That all previous conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3041 shall be null and void. 14. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 16. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as 4pecified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport BBSeh- ,Municipal Code. _ • 17. That appropriate signs shall be provided on the .restaurant site indicating that twelve parking spaces are available for the restaurant use at night in the Great American First Savings Bank parking lot, located at 600 East Balboa Boulevard. -39- C O 2 C m D m ma a xr c> C 2 N O s O v m 0 m D 2 9 Z y= r l/ u ,f March 6, 1986` Beach A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: Planning Director Hewicker advised the Planning Commission that there will be a joint Planning Commission - City Council meeting on March 24, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Chairman Person complimented the Planning Commissioners for the work and assistance he received from the Commission in regard to the Specific Area Plan. Commissioner Kurlander asked staff to investigate if the busses. that are parked in the Lido Marina Village area and on Lido Isle are being used by the Magic Island facility, which would be in violation of their approved use permit. • x A D J O U R N M E N T: 11:10 P.M. PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -40- MINUTES INDEX tional t PC- airman