Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/2001• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley - All Commissioners were present. - STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary • Minutes of March 8.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley and voted on to approve the minutes of March 8, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Abstain: Tucker Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley and voted on to hear item 8 before item 7. Ayes: All Ayes Noes: None Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: • The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, March 30, 2001. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX SUBJECT: Koll Office Site B GPA and PC Amendment Item No. i MacArthur Boulevard /Jamboree Road General Plan • General Plan Amendment 97 -3 (B) Amendment 97 -3 (B) • Amendment 905 Amendment 905 • Traffic Study 119 Traffic Study 119 • Environmental Impact Report 158 Environmental Impact • Development. Agreement 16 Report 158 Development Agreement 16 Review of a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment to allow an additional 250,000 gross square feet of office use within Office Site B Continued to of the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community. The amendments will 05/03/2001 provide for the construction of a ten -story office tower. Mrs. Wood noted that the Planning Department had received a letter from the applicant asking for a continuance to May 31d in order to allow additional time to finalize negotiations on the Development Agreement with the City of Newport Beach. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this matter as requested by the applicant to May 3rd. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajonion, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None • xx• SUBJECT: Newport Beach Tennis Club Item No. 2 2601 Eastbluff Drive UP 3071 A • Special Event Permit Authorization of a special event beyond the scope of that allowed by the site's Use Permit. Mrs. Wood, referring to a letter received from the Eastbluff Homeowners Community Association, noted that the sound amplification is recommended to cease at 10:00 p.m. Wednesday through Friday and at 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. The Special Event Permit condition is in error saying 11 p.m. and staff had Intended that it be at 10:00 p. m. Staff believes this is a reasonable time, given that the matches start at 7:00 p.m., and 8:00 p.m. simply would not be enough time to conclude. She then noted that the second request is a 'no parking restriction' on Bamboo, Bunya, Bellis, Bison and Catalpa streets within Eastbluff only if permits are issued to residents so that they would be able to park on the streets. Staff is not recommending this condition because it is so difficult short- term event to do an effective job of issuing permits to the residents and then for enforcement by the Police Department. The final request is to allow for permitted parking on Eastbluff Drive during the duration of the event. Mr. Edmonston noted that Condition 21 regarding parking on Eastbluff Drive on 0 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX the Permit indicates that this shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Department. The concern we have is that the event is scheduled to start in the early afternoon and would be on -going when the students would be leaving Corona del Mar junior and high schools. Parking on the tennis club side of Eastbluff should not be a problem, but we do have concerns about allowing it on the other side and displacing students who ride their bicycles along there. At Commission inquiry, he added that there currently is no parking along Eastbluff, there are bike lanes; anyone parking there, occupies the whole bike lane. Commissioner Kiser expressed his concern, that to the extent that the parking would be beyond or down by the high school, about visibility and cross walks as school will be in session. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the procedure for a special permit like this? Is the request passed on to all the departments for input, how does it work? He was answered the request comes into the Community Services Department and then it is routed to all effected departments, usually Planning, Building, Police, Fire, Public Works. The staff would then provide any concerns to be addressed in conditions of approval: sometimes there is a meeting with the applicant and the entire group. • Commissioner Kiser noting condition 22 regarding street closures, asked if there was a request for this. Staff answered that there was none and that this condition could be eliminated after discussion with the applicant. Public comment was opened. Mark Fortner, Director of Operations for The Senior Tennis Tour, 1205 Westlakes Drive, Berwyn, PA noted the following at Commission inquiry: • No request for street closure. • The sessions starting at 1:00 p.m. will include two or three matches that will conclude about 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The evening sessions start at 7:00 p.m. Barry Eaton, 727 Bellis Street spoke as the president of the Eastbluff Homeowners Association and noted: • The letter received by the Planning Commission contains the recommendations of the Board of Directors. • The letter contains information based on surveys sent to residents of their B and C street sections of the community that are the closest to the tennis club and did not include those sections closer to the high school. • Surveyed 100 residences and got 24 %, return. • Regarding parking on Eastbluff Drive, the residents felt that it was okay even though it conflicted with the bicycle lane. • The issue of shuttle buses needs to be addressed by requiring a minimum number of buses. • Asked for the earlier ending time for the PA system, as the police will not enforce the sound restrictions. 3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 • Would like to require a sound consultant at least for the first night. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Eaton noted: • The various associations within the area include Eastbluff and the Bluffs Townhomes. • They did not receive notification of the event at the tennis club. • Attendance at sessions unclear. • Parking will be intolerable if the shuttle system is not addressed; there should be a minimum of five shuttles. Bernard Fegg, 2633 Bamboo noted: • Been bothered by these types of events since 1966. • City needs to take a look at the procedures for special events. • Bleachers have been erected on site to handle as many as 10,000 people. • Set up and preparation needs to be limited to one day prior and after. • On site generators and refrigeration trucks were running twenty -four hours a day. The hours need to be limited and /or limited to power supply from site. • Previous events were held during the daytime and this one should be too. • There is a difference between club events and events that the club farms out to some promoter. It is time to bring these all together into one category as being club events and limited by the conditions that the City has placed. Mark Fortner commented: • Shuttle - They plan to provide 10 smaller, 30- passenger type busses. Parking - letter will be mailed to everyone who is receiving a ticket to explain parking information off site only and that the shuttles will be running continuously all day. A map will also be included showing the UCI campus. • Cars will be limited and will have to be permitted to go into the club. • Letter will be sent to all of the club members explaining that shuttles will be provided for them and that the lot is closed off. There will be no charge to tennis club members. • Size of the stadium - there will be 2700 seats at one stadium court; now plan on 13 rows of bleachers. • Set up will start April 251h with the lighting and fencing. • Vendors will be on the parking lot within the fencing. • Generators - a silent generator will be parked in the parking lot and in operation only during times of tournament starting 9 a.m. and off at the end of the nights. • Regency Catering - will have a refrigeration truck parked in the service area between the Ralph's grocery store and the back of the club, Wednesday to Sunday afternoon 24 hours a day. • Amplified sound - four speakers about 4 -5 feet tall and located in the corners of the stadium. • If we need to turn down the volume, we have the ability to do that and are willing to have a qualified sound engineer. • Asking for 2700 attendance per session. • Prefers 11:00 p.m. closing at night. 11 11 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Two types of tickets - box seat bought for the entire session, and individual reserve seats. We can let you know each week about the progressive growth of ticket sales and updates. They will probably have a cut -off date about 2 or 3 days prior to the event to let the shuttle company know how many buses they will need at what times of the day. The cab of the refrigerator truck is removed, and it would be a hefty expense for the caterer to move it each day. Ms. Wood noted that, in the Special Event Permit and the staff report, the hours are showing the hours of the event to be 1 p.m. to 11 p.m. Wednesday through Friday and the sound amplification Wednesday through Friday 1 p.m. to 10 p.m. Ms. Wood said that makes sense to her because the 11 p.m. is giving people time to leave the event. But the Saturday and Sunday hours have the amplification going to 6 p.m. whereas the event ends at 5 p.m. Mr. Fortner responded that they were probably not consistent when they filled out when the sound amplification was going to be. Ms. Wood asked if the events should end at 6 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday with the sound amplification ending at 5 p.m.? Mr. Fortner responded that they should both end at 5 p.m. on Saturday. Ms. Wood commented that they should be consistent on Wednesday through Friday as well. Mr. Fortner said that, on Wednesday through Friday, they will begin at 1 p.m. until 11 p.m. Ms. Wood asked if 11 p.m. is the stopping time for the event as well as the amplified sound. Mr. Fortner said that they could physically stop the event at 1 1 p.m. Ms. Wood noted that she conferred with Ms. Temple regarding this and thought Ms. Temple said your agreement was that the sound would stop sooner than the end of the event so that there would be time for people to leave the club. Mr. Fortner said that typically that is what would happen. The session would start at 7 p.m. and end about 9:30 p.m. and sometimes 10 p.m. and that is the end of it. Mr. Fortner said they make the announcement that the shuttles would be running for 1/2 hour after the match and that would probably be the last announcement for the night as well. Commissioner Gifford asked if this means the event ends at 12 if the amplification stops at 11 p.m.? Or does it mean the event ends of 11 p.m. and the amplification stops at 10 or 10:30 p.m.? Mr. Fortner responded that, if the match is running late because of injury or some other reason, and it looks at though it will go beyond 10:30 p.m., they can tell the people the match will end at 11 p.m. and the shuttles will be leaving. If they are required to be off the site by 11 p.m., they would physically end the match at 10:30 p.m. to give them enough time to get out. Commissioner Gifford commented they should make some conditions that are specific and have the conditions provide for contingencies that may be unforeseen such as injury. Commissioner Gifford asked what was Mr. Fortner's request for ending hours of the tournament and ending hours of the amplification to give them the time to fill -in for those contingencies. Mr. Fortner said that 10:30 p.m. would work well for them. If the event looks like it will be going on past 10:30 p.m., they will start calling it quits at 10:30 p.m. and that will give them a half -hour to get everybody out and INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX amplification will end at 11 p.m. Mr. Fortner said that most likely the last announcement would be for everyone to get to the shuttles. Commissioner Gifford asked at what time that would take place under the hypothetical? Mr. Fortner responded that would occur at about 5 minutes to II p.m. Commissioner Gifford clarified that the request is to allow amplification until 1 I p.m. and people off -site by 11:30? Mr. Fortner said that they will do their best and stop the match at 10:30 p.m. to get everybody off -site by 11 p.m. Commissioner Gifford asked if Mr. Fortner is saying that the amplification, the tournament and the event come to a final conclusion at the some time, and the last announcement about the shuttles might be 5 minutes before you expected everybody to be off the property? Mr. Fortner responded yes. Public Hearing Closed Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to make the following changes to the Special Events Permit Description of Event: Newport Beach Champions (Tennis Toumament) Location: Newport Beach Tennis Club - 2601 Eastbluff Drive Date(s): Wednesday May 9 through Sunday May 13, 2001 Times: 1:00 p.m. to X00 10:00 p.m. Wed. through Fri. 7:00 1:00 p.m. to &W 6:00 p.m. Sat. and Sun. Sound Amplification Hours: 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Wed. through Fri. 7:00 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sat. and Sun. Attendance: 25500 2700 per session The above referenced Special Event Permit is authorized at the location(s), date(s) and times indicated ONLY. Approval is contingent on compliance with the following conditions: 1. All vehicles shall be lawfully parked. No fire lane exemption. 2. No exclusive use of public parking areas. 3. No activities permitted in any portion of public street, sidewalk or alley. 4. No posting of promotional signs permitted on any portion of public property, including trees, utility poles, street signs, etc. 5. Do not block entrances or exits from any building. Do not block Fire Department access to any fire suppression equipment. 6. Do not exceed maximum occupancy load of any room or building. 7. Obey all City, County and State regulations. 8. Comply with the lawful orders of Police, Fire and Marine personnel, or other government officials. 9. No alcoholic beverages permitted on public property. Obey all ABC regulations. 10. All food service to comply with Orange County Health Department • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 requirements. For more information, contact the Orange County Health Department at (714) 667 -3621. 11. This special event permit approval is only for the dates specified in the application. 12. Use of a single non - portable generators} to be used only during the event hours and /or temporary wiring require an Electrical Permit. Please contact Steve Hook of the Building Department at (949) 644 -3265 for more information. The location of the refrigeration truck shall be behind the local supermarket (Ralph's). 13. Permittee shall provide $1,000,000 general liability insurance naming the City of Newport Beach as additionally insured and provide a written endorsement of said coverage. 14. Event promoter will provide a list of all vendors to Glen Everroad at 644- 3148 prior to conducting the event including contractors used to set up bleachers, tents and any vendors present for set -up, break down or during the event. 15. No posting of signs permitted on any portion of public property, including trees, utility poles, street signs, etc. 16. Banners on private property shall be per approved permit from the Planning Department. Please contact Janet Brown of the Planning Department at (949) 644 -3236 for more information. 17. The applicant shall retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the live entertainment or pre- recorded music to insure compliance with these conditions. , if req ii :ed by the oi...,..ing DireGtei: 18. The live entertainment and amplified sound allowed in association with a Special Event Permit shall be limited so that the sound shall be directed away from the neighboring residential properties or otherwise confined to the interior of center court of the facility or within a building. 19. The live entertainment and use of any sound amplification device shall cease at l 1:98 10:00 p.m. or upon order of the Police Department. 20. The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property: N/A 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property N/A 60 dBA N/A 50 dBA Residential Property: 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 21. Parking on Eastbluff Drive shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. Posting of "No Parking - Tow Away" signs or other traffic regulating signs shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Department/Traffic Engineer prior to installation. 22. Stree4 GIGSUFe equKprRent re°f.•1 GRGI placement shall be eeerdiaated with the Ge el Se.n a De.peFtm Rt ,.Rd the Pell a Pe rre1.. eRt 22. Clean up is the responsibility of the Permittee. 23. Event promoter will provide adequate shuttle, but not less than five (5) 30 passenger buses Wednesday through Friday and not less than ten (10) 30 passenger buses on Saturday and Sunday service to get patrons to and from parking areas to event. 24. The assembly and disassembly of the bleachers and other event related items shall be done between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. This permit shall be present at the event and made available at the request of Police Department representatives. Failure to comply with the requirements of this permit, or violations of law, will result in the cancellation of this permit, and /or denial of future permits. Issuance of this permit does not authorize any activity in violation of any law, nor does it represent an endorsement of the activity or persons responsible for the event. Ayes: All Ayes Noes: None SUBJECT: Riverboat Restaurant 151 East Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3684 A request to permit outdoor dining in conjunction with the operation of an existing full- service restaurant /museum facility. The specific request includes: use of the bow and stern decks for Saturday and Sunday brunch; use of the bow deck adjacent to the Texas room in conjunction with a specified number of annual special events and private parties, and no outdoor music is proposed. Mrs. Wood noted that the applicant has requested to continue this matter to April 19th. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this matter as requested to April 19th. Ayes: All Ayes Noes: None wx• INDEX Item No. 3 Use Permit No. 3684 Continued to 04/19/2001 0 • 11 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 SUBJECT: Gina DeMichaels (Pacific Whey Baking Company) 2622 San Miguel Drive • PDA2001 -009 (UP3523Amended) A Use Permit to change an existing food establishment from a take -out to a full- service restaurant by expanding into an adjacent tenant space. The request includes a waiver of a portion of the required parking spaces. Ms. Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner, provided a power point presentation. Ms. Garcia noted that the Pacific Whey Baking Company currently is located in the Newport Hills Shopping Center at San Miguel and Ford Road. Ms. Garcia commented that also located in that center is a bank, service station, veterinarian and a Ralphs. Ms. Garcia showed the location of where the bakery will expand. The existing bakery is 1,300 gross square feet, and with the addition and expansion will be 2,600 square feet. Ms. Garcia said that she went several times to look at the parking because, as noted in the staff report, there is a request for a waiver for a portion of the required off -site parking spaces. Ms. Garcia said that there were available parking spaces at every site visit and staff is comfortable with the recommendations in the staff report. Ms. Garcia referred to page 3 of the staff report and noted that the previous use permit allowed the operation to be open from 6 a.m. to midnight and there is no change in that request. Currently the hours are from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. but the applicant wants to maintain the flexibility of the previous use permit. Commissioner Kranzley referred to page 5 and said he was trying to understand how the existing bakery required parking waived for 25 spaces and there is a credit for the retail bakery area. Ms. Garcia responded that the previous bake shop that occupied the tenant space went in when the City had the category for take -out and we did not have a lot of the definitions for several of the food uses as we do today. In the minutes it appeared that the Center was approved at one per 250 and six spaces were required for the suite before the bakery and a take -out establishment requires parking at 1/50, and that is why they had waived the 23 spaces. Commissioner Kranzley asked what is the credit for the retail bakery area. Ms. Garcia said that the existing tenant space has the six parking spaces and the adjacent tenant space has six spaces for a total of twelve spaces for both tenant spaces. Public Hearing Opened Gina DeMichaels of Pacific Whey Baking Company, 2622 San Miguel Drive was present to answer questions from the Commission. There were no questions from the Commission. Public Hearing Closed Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley for approval of Use Permit No. • PDA2001 -009 (UP3523 Amended) to include the amendments suggested by staff during the presentation. Commissioner Kiser stated that he supports the INDEX item No.4 PA2001 -009 (UP3523A) Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX motion but would like to see one additional condition that was not in the staff report. Condition No. 10 is no live entertainment or dancing, and Commissioner Kiser said he would also like to have Condition No. 11, No outdoor loud speaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the operation. Commissioner KranAey said he would add that Condition to his motion. Commissioner McDaniel asked if the applicant is okay with that Condition. Ms. DiMichaels said she was. Ayes: All Ayes Noes: None EXHIBIT NO. 2 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PDA 2001.009 (Use Permit No. 3523Amended) Findings 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail, Service Commercial" land use; and the existing restaurant is a permitted use within this designation.. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3523 Amended, will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the following reasons: a. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible. with the surrounding land uses. b. The change to a full- service restaurant will not adversely affect the surrounding neighbors because it does not include operational characteristics such as alcohol beverage service, live entertainment, or outdoor dining that other full- service restaurants have. c. The existing on -site parking and circulation system is adequate to accommodate the proposed restaurant facility because of the common usage of the parking lot by all tenants and the fact that many of the restaurant patrons either work in the shopping center, reside within walking distance or are otherwise visiting in the vicinity. d. A waiver of the portion of the required parking spaces (7) will not be 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 detrimental to the surrounding neighbors nor create a shortage of available on -site parking spaces because many of the uses in the shopping center have staggered hours of operation which reduces the parking demand. e. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. f. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code. Conditions: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. The interior net public area of the restaurant shall be limited to 730 square feet. 3. The hours of operation of the restaurant are as previously approved by Use Permit 3523 Amended, 6:00 a.m. to midnight, daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit. 4. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure, or otherwise screened from the view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. That the trash dumpsters shall be fully enclosed and the top shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 5. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors which may include the provision of fully self- contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 6. Storage outside of the facility shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure and existing storage structures. 7. A washout area for refuse container is to be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building and Public Works Departments. 8. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Depart ment. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 10. No live entertainment, dancing, or the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted unless an amendment to this use permit is approved. 11. No outdoor loud speaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the operation. 12. All employees shall park on site. 11 No temporary "sandv0ch" signs shall be permitted to advertise the approved restaurant facility. 14. All applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3523 Amended, dated April 7, 1994, shall remain in force (copy attached). Standard Conditions: 15. All signs shall conform to the provisions of the Harbor View Hills Planned Community District Regulations. 16. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 17. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Newport Beach City Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 18. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 19. 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. 20. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Dennis & Chris Overstreet 3400 Via Lido • PA2001- 025(UP2001 -005) INDEX Item No. 5 PA2001 -025 (UP2001 -005) A Use Permit for a new alcoholic beverage license (Type 21, off -sale general) in I Approved 12 P \J • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 conjunction with a fine wine retail establishment. The applicant also proposes to conduct periodic on -site wine tasting seminars in the evenings for approximately 30 people with a Type 42- alcohol license. The project requires the consideration of a parking waiver. Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner, commented that the project is located at the comer of Via Lido and Via Oporto and noted that the site has no parking and they are relying on the Lido Marina Village Parking garage. Mr. Campbell said that project approval requires a parking waiver. Mr. Campbell presented to the Commission a supplemental staff report because staff inadvertently put in the incorrect crime statistics in the original staff report. The ABO ordinance requires us to evaluate the alcohol beverage outlet pursuant to some factors including crime statistics and over - concentration of liquor licenses in the area. Mr. Campbell said that staff prepared the report using the 1999 statistics for the Commission's consideration. The crime rates and concentrations are slightly better than were in 1998 but that does not change the fact that this is an over - concentrated area in terms of the number of licenses as well as the area has one of the higher crime rates in the City. Mr. Campbell said that the Via Lido parking garage inventory contained in the staff report is an outdated version and the correct one is attached to the supplemental staff report. Mr. Campbell said that the survey does not change the fact the parking garage is over allocated during the daytime and during the evening hours it is not and that this is something that should be considered. Mr. Campbell said that staff wanted to discuss a minor condition change to Condition No. 4 that referenced the wrong unit. It should be Unit B in Condition No. 4. Mr. Campbell referred to Condition No. 19 that relates to valet parking services and said that it would imply that valet parking is required at all times. Mr. Campbell explained that the valet item is an amenity that the applicant wants to provide for the use for the educational and wine tasting sessions. Staff did not look at the valet requirement as being a mandatory factor in the consideration of the parking waiver. Staff wants to change the condition to If they provide valet parking service it would be subject to the review of the Traffic Engineer in the Public Works Department. Mr. Campbell stated that staff recommends approval of the alcohol beverage outlet and feel that the way the permit is structured and how the conditions link these two operations together, it would not permit the use of these licenses by almost anyone else unless they operated the same operation that the Overstreets are proposing. Chairman Selich said that it appears the basis upon which they are granting the parking waiver is the fact that they have an off -site parking management plan and asked if the Commission approves this with that parking waiver and one of the keys to it is the proposal to use 22 parking spaces in the garage, and the 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 reason we are not using our standard off -site agreement is because it cannot meet the criteria of our standard off -site agreement but since this is a part of a parking management plan and we are waiving the parking based on that, if the agreement with the parking garage ceases to exist, does that mean the applicant has to come back to the Planning Commission with another parking solution? Mr. Campbell said that is correct, and that Condition No. 18 requires that they provide 21 parking spaces in the Lido Marina Parking garage. Chairman Selich said that as long as they are in compliance with the Parking Management Plan, which controls the number of spaces they have, but if they lose the spaces and they cannot continue to operate, they would have to come back to the Planning Commission to seek relief from. that or have the spaces or cease operation one way or another. Staff responded yes. Commissioner Gifford asked about the idea of how many uses occur simultaneously. She said that her question has more to do with what the definition of the site is because the wine tasting seminars are scheduled for evenings and almost all of Lido Marina Village is shut down in the evening in terms of the retail operations. Commissioner Gifford asked if "site" is not broad enough to include all of the parking that is available? Is the site Lido Marina Village or the building? Mr. Campbell said the site is the building. The use of the parking garage and the use of the spaces that are in the Village area are a factor that could be considered in the parking waiver. Mr. Campbell said that most of the uses in the evening hours are closed and there is less parking demand at that time. Commissioner Gifford noted that the other two uses operated at similar hours of operation and asked what two uses are referred to specifically. Mr. Campbell said that particular finding is setup for a larger site with multiple uses that are not operating at the some time. In this particular case, the site is the property, which are really the retail aspect as well as the wine tasting. Commissioner Gifford said that it is not Lido Marina Village but that parcel of property. Commissioner Kiser asked if there were any telephone calls or written responses to the Public Notice sent out by the City from anyone either objecting or supporting the application. Mr. Campbell responded that he had not received any telephone calls or letters from anyone. The applicant submitted a petition of endorsement. Commissioner Kiser referred to Condition No. 5 and asked how they differentiate the proposed use from an eating and drinking establishment and the evening use. How is this put in the non - eating and drinking establishment category? Mr. Campbell referred to the floor plan, Suite A and Suite B. Suite A is the retail portion and Suite B is the on -site consumption portion. Staff structured this permit to authorize the retail sale of alcohol beverages and are indicating that the on- site wine tasting, which is in a separate suite, is accessory to that use. Therefore, this use permit does not authorize an eating and drinking establishment. The on- site consumption license is the some license you would have at a wine bar. With this use permit, it is restricted as accessory to the retail use and you could not operate a bar or anything other than accessory wine tasting. Commissioner Kiser 14 INDEX 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 asked what is accessory to another use? If it turned out that this use of the wine tasting ended up being 60 percent of the revenue of the business, would that then make it less of an accessory use? Mr. Campbell commented that typically accessory would be less than 50 percent. This particular retail establishment would have to be limited to 20 percent pursuant to the definitions of the Zoning Code, so they would fall below 20 percent. The on -site consumption aspect is accessory but no more than 20 percent of the overall activity of the entire operation. Ms. Wood noted that the Code definition of accessory use does not have anything quantifiable in it. It means "a use that is appropriate, subordinate and customarily incidental to the main use of the site, which is located on the main site of the use." Commissioner Agajanian asked what the hours of operation for the wine tasting were. Mr. Campbell said it would be 1 p.m. to 11 p.m. Commissioner Agajanian asked how Suite B could be incidental after 7 p.m. Mr. Campbell said they are measuring it based on the overall use and it would average out over the entire use of the facility. Commissioner Agajanian asked if during the hours that Suite B is open, do the doors need to remain open to the public? Mr. Campbell responded yes. Commissioner Agajanian asked if any adult could walk in, and Mr. Campbell responded that they have to be 21 years old. Commissioner Agajanian asked if they could sit down and order wine, and Mr. Campbell responded yes. Commissioner Agajanian asked how that would differentiate an Is eating and drinking establishment from a bar? Commissioner Kranzley said he would like to continue that line of thought and wanted it understood that it was not specific to the Overstreets. In theory, Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights you could walk into this establishment or any subsequent establishment that falls under this use permit, purchase a glass of wine, buy food because the applicant has suggested, in their letter, they will have food that will include sandwiches, salads, etc. Commissioner Kranzley said that, in Condition No. 5, the approval does not permit the premises to act as an eating and drinking establishment, he does not understand that. Commissioner Gifford asked to have the applicant clarify it for them. She said when she read the condition it was her understanding that if you conducted wine- tasting seminars, they would be ticketed events. The idea that the room could be used from 1 p.m. to 11 p.m. would be that they could conduct seminars on the weekends and Castings in the evenings. Commissioner Gifford referred to a second optional finding they could make about parking and relying on the Lido Marina Village parking garage and asked about all the metered parking on the street that typically is not used at that hour and is available. Is that because of a requirement to provide on -site parking? Mr. Campbell said yes. Commissioner Gifford referred to the closest Municipal Parking Lot located at the corner of Villa Way and 301h Street and asked if there was a public parking lot next to the Elks Club at the end of the street? Mr. Edmonton responded there is but the City has entered into an agreement with the Elks, which gives them the exclusive use of most of that lot from 6 p.m. to 6 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX a.m., seven days a week. Commissioner Tucker referred to Condition 1, the second sentence and said he was under the impression that the seminar room was going to be for wine tasting as a lead in to the sales from the liquor store portion. He said he was confused how this Condition ties in with the concern about it becoming a bar. Public Hearing Opened Chairman Selich asked the applicant to come forward and said the question is how does the wine tasting operate subordinate to the retail portion of their operation and what assurances do they have that it will not become a bar, either through the applicant or some other owner. Dennis Overstreet, applicant, 128 Via Trieste. Mr. Overstreet commented that he has run the Wine Merchant in Beverly Hills for three decades and that his operation is unique in the fact that they have wine tasting on site in conjunction with their retail sales. Mr. Overstreet said the ABC came up with the Type 42 license, which is primarily a wine- tasting license. Mr. Overstreet said that they wanted their retail license to run at the same time as the on -sale license. Christine Overstreet commented that she wanted to clarify that they understand the concerns of an 11 p.m. hour. People who are drinking later in the evening are more inebriated than those drinking earlier in the evening. Mrs. Overstreet said that their recommendation would be that, should the tasting room close at 8 p.m., three nights a week, that the retail part would have to close at the some time since the conditional use permit is recommending that the two licenses work hand ih hand. Mr. Overstreet commented that, in purchasing the property, it was his understanding that they have a dedicated amount of spaces that are in the Lido Parking Garage that went along with the purchase of the building. Mrs. Overstreet said the agreement is through 2008 and that they also have an off -site parking agreement with the City of Newport Beach that went into effect 1975 and it is still in effect. Mrs. Overstreet said that to make sure they had enough parking, they went to California Parking Services, the management of the parking structure for Lido Marina Village, and have come up with a contract that would guarantee 22 spaces from 10 a.m. until closing. Mrs. Overstreet said in reference to valet parking, they spoke with Mr. Edmonston, the Fire Marshall and Mr. Campbell and it has been determined through the Lido Marina Village owner that they could have space and have a valet parking situation. Commissioner Tucker referred to Condition No. 3 and asked if the wine tasting would be open 7 days a week but the educational seminars would be up to 3 days per week? Mr. Overstreet said it would probably be a 5 to 6 day a week type of operation. Commissioner Tucker asked staff if they looked at what is involved in a Type 42 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 liquor license, the application form, and the restrictions the ABC has? Mr. Campbell said that the Police Department would know better what the ABC restrictions are. Commissioner Tucker asked if Mr. Overstreet anticipates selling a glass of wine to a person who happens on his premises at 9 p.m. on a Friday night who is interested in drinking and not into wine tasting? Do you contemplate selling wine by the glass in the tasting area? Mr. Overstreet responded yes they do, and they have had 100 residents sign a petition endorsing they would like to see this type of operation. Commissioner McDaniel asked what is to keep someone from stumbling in and getting three glasses of wine and hit the road again and what is the difference between that and a bar? Mr. Overstreet responded that they are a fine wine merchant and the standard for the products they carry is raised very high. Mr. Overstreet said they own the property and have a vested interest. Chairman Selich commented that they understand what the operation is and what the clientele that he is trying to attract to his business. Commissioner Agajanian asked how detrimental would it be to their operation if the Type 42 license operating hours was restricted to 9 p.m. instead of 1 I p.m. Mr. Overstreet responded that it would get a little oppressive for adults and noted that they suggest their clientele have a meal before they go to a wine tasting. Commissioner Agajanian asked if they were intending on offering any table service in Suite B to the seats aside from the bar? Mr. Overstreet said probably not. Chairman Selich asked if no table service would be an acceptable condition on the use permit? Mr. Overstreet said yes. Commissioner Kiser asked if they are assuming that the wine tasting serving sizes will be typical of the serving sizes one would get in a restaurant if they were to order a glass of vine? Or will they be more of a sample size with a few ounces of wine? Mr. Overstreet responded it would probably be a sample size. Commissioner Kiser asked if they would consider a normal retail price for the samples or would he be giving away the samples? Mr. Overstreet said they would have at least a retail plus mark -up price. Mrs. Overstreet said the idea is to educate yourself without getting inebriated so you have 1/2 ounce to an ounce of three wines. Commissioner Kiser suggested if they were able to lawfully restrict that wine- tasting side of the shop to be served only in 1 ounce maximum servings, would they have a problem with that? Commissioner Kiser asked if they were talking about the classes only where they would receive the 3 ounces of wine? Mrs. Overstreet said not necessarily, it runs the gamut. Commissioner Gifford commented, in trying to structure something that did not detract from their business, but gives the Commission confidence that a different operator who might come in the future, the permit would not have the latitude to have a significantly different operation. Commissioner Gifford asked Mr. • Overstreet if he would have any objection to a condition that required that service in the wine bar would be made in Riedel stemware. Mr. Overstreet said 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX no and would welcome that type of situation to ensure that wine appreciation is taking place rather than just tourism going from winery to winery for consumption. Mr. Overstreet also suggested a requirement is made that there is a minimum $10.00 cover that could be applied towards purchase of wine from the retail aspect. Commissioner Gifford asked if they would consider a condition that they not serve beer? Mr. Overstreet responded yes. Commissioner Tucker said he would like to clarify Condition 18 concerning the parking spaces, which is saying if they do not have a parking agreement at some point, they do not have a use permit. In other words, if they have a month to month parking agreement or one that expires in three or eight years, if they do not come back to the Commission to get a replacement use permit agreed upon, they will not have a use permit to operate. Mr. Overstreet said he understood that. Commissioner Tucker said he was not sure how he felt about requiring the applicant to have a cover charge or the type of stemware as a condition. Commissioner Gifford said that it is unusual to provide this as a condition, but the Riedel stemware alone would take care of any concerns they might have of what could happen in the future. Commissioner Gifford noted with respect to the hour of closing and said it has been her experience when a wine tasting event is over, people linger and talk about what they might order and the idea of 11 p.m. does not necessarily mean that people will still be doing the tasting but it would seem like a reasonable hour. Commissioner Gifford expressed that if they have some condition that locks someone into a level of service that will require a certain pricing and not become a neighborhood bar, that would serve their purpose. Public Hearing Opened Christina Grace of Lido Island said that she has been to the Overstreets Wine Merchant in Beverly Hills and it is a lovely establishment. Ms. Grace supports it and urged the City to support it because it is for the betterment of the community. David Roster encouraged everyone to see the Wine Merchant in Beverly Hills and supports the applicant. Diana Chaumis of Lido Isle supports the applicant and urged the City to keep the sales tax in Newport Beach. Public Hearing Closed Commissioner Tucker suggested that they come up with some type of resolution and conditions that would allow this use to go forward. Commissioner Kronzley 18 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 expressed he felt the Overstreets would bring a quality to Lido Marina Village that they need. Commissioner Kranzley said that he did not see anything in the conditions that would prohibit the next person who owns this establishment from having an eating and drinking establishment. Mr. Campbell commented that he mentioned earlier about a 20 percent limitation and that is a definition in the Zoning Code for retail establishments for food and beverage sales for on -site consumption for example in a grocery store you could have on -site consumption as long as those transactions do not exceed 20 percent and they are not defined as an eating and drinking establishment. Twenty percent limitation on transactions is something that the Overstreets can and will comply with. If it were to exceed 20 percent of their transactions, then they would be classified as an eating and drinking establishment, which is not authorized by this use permit and they could not become a bar. Commissioner Kranzley noted that it could become a bar if were a very successful liquor store. Commissioner Kranzley commented that his sympathy goes with the Overstreets because they purchased a property at ground zero of alcohol related crimes in the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner Kranzley stated that they do want to keep revenues in the City of Newport Beach but the City spends a disproportionate amount of the budget in trying to keep the peace in District No. 15 and that is the problem in the Cannery Area and Lido Marina Village. Commissioner KranzJey expressed regret that he could not support this project in this area. Commissioner Kiser commented that the 20 percent limitation would naturally have an effect on the amount of on premises consumption of wine because the applicant would want and need to keep a close watch on what percentage was going out in their gross receipts in the tasting versus the off -sale. That would have a limiting effect on it that they would not be entertaining people coming in off the street just for a glass of wine. Commissioner Agajanian asked if there was anybody who could speak to the limitations to the Type 42 type of license. Mr. Campbell responded that he did not see a representative from the Police Department and that he could not. Chairman Selich asked Mr. & Mrs. Overstreet to give a brief summary of the limitations on the Type 42 license. Mrs. Overstreet responded that, as for as she knew, it is limited to wine and beer only. She said their use permit would not allow beer, so it would be limited to wine only. Commissioner Agajanian asked how it would differ from the bar down the street that wanted to sell beer and wine? Mr. Overstreet commented that this goes back to 1973 when Type 42 was originally thought up for wine stores to be able to have on -site wine tasting. But unfortunately, the Legislature did not restrict it to say that the general public could not come in and buy a glass of wine or beer. That was the whole concept of this law originally. Mr. Overstreet said it is the some license that the wineries are using. Commissioner Agajanian asked how it differs from a regular beer and wine license? Mr. Overstreet said that it does not. • Commissioner Tucker said he would defer to the Police Department, which does not seem to believe that this particular use in this location will contribute to an 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX alcohol related problem in the area. Commissioner Tucker said he would be supportive of this use in this location. Commissioner Kiser said he would be concerned about the cover charge and tying the applicant to a particular manufacturer that might become scarce or go out of favor. Commissioner Kiser brought up the possible limitation of evening hours of the on -site portion to bringing it back one hour to 10 p.m. so that it would restrict the potential future operator from creating a bar. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve Use Permit 2001-005 with the following revisions to the Conditions of Approval: Commissioner Kranzley remarked that, after listening to the discussions of the other Planning Commissioners, having reviewed his notes with regards to the various limitations that have been placed and the additional limitations that have been placed, and his desire to have high quality businesses on the Peninsula, he was reversing what he said prior and will be supporting this motion. Commissioner Agajanian commented that he was concerned whether the hours are open to the general public or whether you can be operating that wine tasting room and still have the doors closed to the public. Commissioner Agajanian asked what the Type 42 license either allow or permit you to do? Commissioner Agajanian said that he would support continuance on this project because he is not prepared. There was no answer to Commissioner Agajanian's question. Commissioner Kranzley suggested adding a Condition where receipts are reviewed annually by the City. Substitute motion for Condition No. 34 was made by Commissioner Gifford that would not require an annual audit of receipts and that the Condition would be enforced by the factual observations by the Police Department or others in the way of complaint, they would have the ability to audit and is consistent with what they do with other businesses. Commissioner Kiser accepted the substitute motion as an amendment to his motion. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Agajanian Commissioner Kranzley requested that, the next time they have an alcohol permit, staff to have either the language of the ABC permit or someone from the Police Department present to answer the question. • 20 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 EXHIBIT NO.4 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PA2001- 025(UP2001 -005) Findings: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial' use. Retail sales of alcoholic beverages and accessory wine tasting and wine educational seminars is permitted use within this commercial designation. The structure that the proposed use will occupy is legal, nonconforming with respects to the maximum floor area ratio. The proposed project does not increase the gross floor area of the building. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and Local Coastal Program. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class I (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as it permits the continued operation and minor alteration of existing facilities with negligible or no expansion of use. • 3. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) and will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: a. The primary and principal function of the proposed alcoholic beverage outlet is as a retail establishment for the sale of general alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption. On -site consumption of beer and wine is limited to wine tasting and shall be accessory and subordinate to the principal retail use. b. The primary retail use requires accessory wine tasting and wine education seminars. c. The accessory wine tasting may not be converted or otherwise become a restaurant bar, tavern, cocktail lounge, and night club. d. The hours of operation of the principal and accessory use is sufficiently restricted to prevent negative effects of alcohol sales and service. e. Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent problems associated with the sale and service of alcoholic beverages. f. Off -site parking is available for the use within the Lido Marina Village parking garage and the site is not authorized as an eating or drinking establishment as defined by the Zoning Code which could generate 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 increased parking demand. g. No live entertainment is permitted and a special events permit is required for any event outside the normal operating characteristics of the proposed alcoholic beverage outlet. 4. The waiver of 21 parking spaces in this case will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: a. The project includes a parking management plan that provides 22 parking spaces in the Lido Marina Village parking garage at all time the use is open for business. b. The project parking management plan includes the use of valet parking for in conjunction with the Lido Marina Village parking garage when the proposed educational seminars will occur. C. The project is not authorized as an eating or drinking establishment as defined by the Zoning Code which could generate increased parking demand. Conditions: The alcoholic beverage outlet is hereby defined as a retail establishment for the sale of general alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption as the primary and principal use of the project site. On -site consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to wine tasting and shall be accessory and subordinate to the principal retail use and sales shall not exceed 20 percent of gross sales. The retail use is prohibited from operation without the accessory wine tasting use. 2. The interior area authorized for on -site consumption of beer and wine in conjunction with a Type 42 alcohol license shall be limited to 1,263 sq. ff. as delineated on the approved floor plans as "Unit B." The interior area authorized for the retail sales for general alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption in conjunction with a Type 21 alcohol license shall be limited to 1,328 sq. ft. as delineated on the approved floor plans as "Unit A" The development shall be in compliance with the approved floor plans dated April 5, 2001. Substantial changes to the floor plans shall require prior approval by the Planning Commission. Any increase in area of either Unit A or Unit B shall be seerRed deemed substantial for the purposes of requiring review by the Planning Commission. 3. The hours of operation shall be limited to 10:00AM to 7:9812M 1 7:00PM daily for the retail portion of the project and 1:OOPM to 1 1:OOPM daily for the wine tasting and wine educational activities. Organized educational seminars shall not be conducted more than 3 days per 22 INDEX • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX week and wine tasting, open to the general public may occur, any day during authorized hours. 4. The service for on -site consumption of beer and wine of shall be restricted to the interior of Unit A B as identified in Condition No. 2, unless approved by the Planning Commission, Police Department and the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 5. Approval does not permit the premises to operate as an eating and drinking establishment, restaurant, bar, tavern, cocktail lounge or night club as defined by the Municipal Code, unless the Planning Commission first approves a Use Permit. 6. The sale of distilled spirits shall not exceed 15% of gross receipts of all off - site alcohol sales. The applicant or operator shall maintain adequate records to determine compliance with this condition and shall provide the city said records when requested. 7. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be prohibited. 8. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. If the operator fails to discourage or correct nuisances, the Planning Commission may review, modify or revoke this use permit in accordance with Chapter 20.96 of the Zoning Code. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 10. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body, which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of these conditions within 180 days of the effective date of this Use Permit. 11. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained . on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative 23 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX of the City of Newport Beach. 12. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. 13. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the terms of this chapter (Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date. 14. A special events permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of this retail business that would increase the expected occupancy beyond 29 patrons and 6 employees at any one time or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such special events permit. 15. This use permit may be reviewed, modified or revoked by the Planning Commission or City Council should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 16. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this permit. 17. Should this business or either alcohol license be sold or otherwise come under different ownership or control, any future owners, operators or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current owner /operator. Future owners, operators or assignees shall submit, within 30 days of transfer or sale of the business or alcohol license, a letter to the Planning Department acknowledging their receipt and acceptance of the limitations, restrictions and conditions of approval of this Use Permit. 18. The owner /operator of the proposed use shall enter into an agreement to provide and maintain a minimum of 21 parking spaces within the Lido Marina Village Parking garage to be accessible at all times during the operation of the use. 19. The applicant or operator of the facility sha4 may provide valet attendant service for the use in conjunction with the Lido Marina Village parking garage. The applicant or operator shall prepare a valet operated parking plan to be reviewed and approved by the P-�lie WeFlks DepaFtFnea# City Traffic Engineer prior to the commencement of 24 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 the use. 20. Delivery vehicles shall not park within the public right -of -way of Via Lido and Via Oporto. 21. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside the proposed facility. 22. Trash generated by the business be screened from view from adjoining properties except when placed for pick -ups by refuse collection agencies. 23. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the operation. 24. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use. 25. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. 26. No temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the restaurant. 27. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 28. A handicapped assessable public restrooms are required. The restrooms must be in compliance with the Uniform Plumbing Code and all applicable Uniform Building Code requirements. 29. Health Department approval is required before issuance of a building permit. 30. Where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Utilities Department. 31. The facility and related off - street parking shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 32. Upon evidence that noise generated by the project exceeds the noise standards established by Chapter 20.26 (Community Noise Control) of the Municipal Code, the Planning Director may require that the applicant or successor retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the restaurant • facility to develop a set of corrective measures necessary in order to 25 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 insure compliance. 33. The operator facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified.time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: INDEX n U 34. Gross receipts shall be reviewed annually by the City for purposes of compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Code and Use Permit if the use is believed to be operating in non - compliance. SUBJECT: Dr. George Katcherlan Rem No. 6 4263 Birch Street Use Permit 3692 Use Permit No. 3692 Amendment to a previously approved Use Permit authorizing the construction of Approved a 2,972 square foot veterinary hospital and indoor kennel and a 460 square foot animal crematorium structure. The proposed amendment eliminates the indoor kennel and would relocate the existing crematorium to a new 3,000 square foot storage building. Senior Planner James Campbell noted that the use permit was approved several years ago. The applicant constructed the crematorium structure and since then has been collecting a lot of equipment and storing it outdoors. It has come to our attention that this material is being inappropriately stored in the back. The applicant is now suggesting to build approximate 3,000 square foot storage building in the rear of the property; relocate the crematorium to this new building and leave the new storage area within the new building for his equipment. I would like to add a condition of approval due to the fact that this request to amend the use permit has come about due to a violation of code for the outdoor storage. The condition would be that, 'The applicant shall file for a building permit within 30 days of the effective date of the permit • and that all outdoor storage of materials shall terminate within 30 days of final 26 Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:00 a.m, and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Interior Exterior Interior Exten r Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property: N/A 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property N/A 60 dBA N/A 50 dBA Residential Property: 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA INDEX n U 34. Gross receipts shall be reviewed annually by the City for purposes of compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Code and Use Permit if the use is believed to be operating in non - compliance. SUBJECT: Dr. George Katcherlan Rem No. 6 4263 Birch Street Use Permit 3692 Use Permit No. 3692 Amendment to a previously approved Use Permit authorizing the construction of Approved a 2,972 square foot veterinary hospital and indoor kennel and a 460 square foot animal crematorium structure. The proposed amendment eliminates the indoor kennel and would relocate the existing crematorium to a new 3,000 square foot storage building. Senior Planner James Campbell noted that the use permit was approved several years ago. The applicant constructed the crematorium structure and since then has been collecting a lot of equipment and storing it outdoors. It has come to our attention that this material is being inappropriately stored in the back. The applicant is now suggesting to build approximate 3,000 square foot storage building in the rear of the property; relocate the crematorium to this new building and leave the new storage area within the new building for his equipment. I would like to add a condition of approval due to the fact that this request to amend the use permit has come about due to a violation of code for the outdoor storage. The condition would be that, 'The applicant shall file for a building permit within 30 days of the effective date of the permit • and that all outdoor storage of materials shall terminate within 30 days of final 26 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 occupancy of the proposed storage building. " Public comment was opened. Dr. George Katcherian, 21 Timberline, Irvine a veterinarian and applicant noted that he accepts the additional condition that staff has proposed. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 3692 A with the findings and conditions of approval attached as Exhibit 1 with the added condition recommended by staff. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agaianian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None EXHIBIT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3692 Finding • 1. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3692 will not under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: L a. The proposed application is support service in nature and as such, is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses commercial and office land uses. b. Adequate parking will be provided on -site for the proposed development provided that the project proposed expansion is reduced to 2,860 square feet. C. The proposed expansion of the subject facility will not have any significant environmental impact. The project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act Implementing Guidelines as the site is in an urbanized area and the project is zoned for office and commercial uses and it is less than 10,000 square feet in area. Phi INDEX City of Newport Beach, . Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX d. The expanded facility will not increase the number of outdoor dog runs (15), and therefore, will not increase the potential for increased noise from barking dogs. e. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the propose development. I. The proposed storage /crematorium building will improve the overall aesthetics of the site providing enclosed storage and increased landscaping. Conditions 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan floor plans, and elevations dated April 5, 2001, except as noted below. 2. 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. 3. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. The proposed 3,000 square foot expansion shall be reduced to 2,860 square feet. As an alternative, one additional on -site parking space may be proposed provided that it the entire parking facility is found acceptable to the Public Works Department and does not reduce landscaping. 5. That the outdoor kennels and dog runs shall be removed, or they shall be enclosed by full height walls and solid roofs. 6. That the kennels and dog runs shall drain directly into the sewer system and not to the exterior of the building or into the storm drain system, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Utilities Department 7. That the trash area shall be fully screened from view from Birch Street and adjacent properties. 8. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or licensed architect for on -site and • M City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 adjacent off -site planting areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the relocated crematorium, the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Air Quality Management District relative to its re- installation and continued operation. 10. Public improvements may be required pursuant to Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code. All improvements, if any, shall be constructed by Ordinance and subject to Public Works Department requirements. 11. The applicant or property owner shall owner shall pay the Fair Share Traffic Contribution fee pursuant to Chapter 15.38 of the Municipal Code. • 12. The final design of on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 13. In accordance with the provisions of Title 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services and Public Works Departments. All work within the public right of way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 14. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagman. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 15. The proposed storage /crematorium building shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system subject to the review and approval by the Building. 16. The applicant shall file for a building permit within 30 days of the effective date of the permit and that all outdoor storage of materials • shall terminate within 30 days of final occupancy of the proposed 29 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX storage building. SUBJECT: Proposed Development Plan Review Procedures Item No. 7 Discussion Item Only A proposed amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to Continued to establish procedures for development plan review. 04/19/2001 Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item due to the lateness of the hour to April 19th Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None xxx SUBJECT: Coastal Bluff Site Plan Review Item No. 8 • Amendment No. 908 - Site Plan Review Overlay for A 908 coastal bluff properties in Corona Del Mar Amendment to Zone Districting Maps #16, #17 & #18 to combine the Site Plan Recommended for Review Overlay (SPR) designation to the existing zoning designation of coastal Approval bluff properties located within Corona Del Mar. Senior Planner James Campbell noted that this overlay entails applying an existing chapter of the Code (20.92) for Site Plan Review to the coastal bluff properties in Corona del Mar. He noted the map attached to the report that identifies affected properties and addresses and basically encompasses all the coastal bluff properties from Irvine Terrace and Little Corona beach. The Site Plan Review Chapter would require the Planning Commission to review any new structures including fences and additions to existing structures that exceed 507o of the gross floor area or 2500 square feet, whichever is less. The Planning Commission can review these projects and apply discretion in the implementation of existing General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies that address public views and preservation of coastal bluffs. He then presented slides of the coastal bluff areas. At Commission direction, he noted concerns that both the City Council and Planning Commission have that gave rise to this Amendment. A project may come forward and be approved as it is fully compliant with the Zoning Code, but it could potentially be inconsistent with local coastal program and general plan land use policies that talk about minimizing the alteration of the bluff as well as preservation of public views. He noted specific properties and functions of the amendment: • Coastal bluff properties on Ocean Boulevard, Hazel Drive, Carnation, Pacific Drive, Avocado Avenue and Breakers Drive. • This area is where there is an increased amount of development pressure. • 30 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 • Amendment would apply Site Plan Overlay Map designator to the existing zoning of the property. • Underlying zoning of R -1, R -2 or Multi- family would remain the same. • All properties subject to Chapter 20.92. • Approval would be required for any grading or building for any new structure including fences. • These applications would go before the Planning Commission for review and City Council upon appeal. • This amendment is prompted by Planning Commission concern that a project could come in and possibly do two, three, four and /or five levels and come all the way down the bluff. This would create a significant change to the view as well as alter the open areas of the bluff. It could be potentially a ministerial project, meaning that the City would not have the ability to apply any discretion in the application of policies that have been adopted by the City regarding preservations of these features. Public comment was opened. Jay Cowan, 3030 Breakers Drive noted that he is in the process of obtaining a permit for the development of his property in accordance with the building codes and a variance that he had been granted. Speaking as president of the . Breakers Drive Association, he noted that he has heard complaints and concerns from the Breakers Drive residents: • Limits development of sites. • Taking of private property for public use is illegal as referenced in his letter, • Roof tops, by Code, are no higher than curb site; and • Public use consists of viewing from the ocean and the parking lot. Commissioner Tucker clarified with staff that the Variance granted to Mr. Cowan a few months ago exempts him from this review process. Mr. Campbell noted that staff is suggesting that any prior existing variance, use permit or site plan review approved by the Planning Commission that remains valid would be exempt from the review process. Staff is recommending a change to the effective date of the review process than noted in the staff report. Staff now recommends that other projects would need to have a building permit in hand on the effective date of this Ordinance. Commissioner Tucker noted that the Planning Commission is not part of the City that sets policy. The Planning Commission attempts to follow the policy set by the City Council. There is a policy in our General Plan that states that the siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along the bluffs and cliffs. The coastal program that we have has similar language in the grading part, it states that permitted development shall be designed to minimize • the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. What came to our attention, when you appeared for your variance and a nearby neighbor as well, 31 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX was that we actually have these policies in our General Plan and Local Coastal Program but we do not have anything to implement these policies. We brought this to the attention of the City Council and they adopted a resolution that they desire to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and District Maps to implement coastal bluff development regulations and procedures with the intent to implement the policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. That is what this discussion is all about. Staff was directed and the public has had fair warning of what the review process will be and what these policies are. Continuing, he commented that there are issues looking at the bluffs. We are not denying people the right to develop their property; there is a review process that is supposed to be in place earlier than now that hasn't been in place. If the City Council does not want that policy in place that will be its ultimate decision. The Planning Commission will recommend something to the City Council that is consistent with the policy that is in the General Plan. Daniel Leonard, 3124 Breakers Drive stated that this property has been in his wife's family since 1955. They have developed building plans with an architect and have been working with the Planning Department since 1999. He then asked for an exemption stating the following: • Invested a significant amount of money to date. • Plans submitted to the Building Department are in compliance with existing building and planning codes. • Architect has been in contact with the Planning Department. • • Neither he nor his architect have been notified that this issue was coming up for discussion. • Asked that a permit be issued to him for this development. Commissioner Kran7Jey noted that on the staff report there was a date certain for this amendment to become effective. That date has been changed to the effective date of that ordinance which is when this ordinance would pass the City Council. It is no longer March 24th. Ms. Clauson clarified that the date selected was the date that actually would give more rights to the people who have approvals in concept or other types of approvals before the notice date, which are not legally considered to be when you are vested. Vested right shall mean that the project shalt have performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on a valid building permit issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance. This amendment will have to go on to City Council and the soonest it could become effective would be after the first and second reading and thirty days after that, which would probably be approximately June 8 +h. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell reviewed the changes in the original staff report on application. Staff had looked at this after several challenges about review date retroactive from adoption. Therefore, we came up with a different scenario to start. An applicant would need to have a building permit vested prior to the effective date of the ordinance. Referring to page 3 of the draft City Council Ordinance Section 2 states that, "projects that have a vested right to • 32 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 proceed with construction or have been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to a Use Permit, Variance or Site Plan Review shall not be subject to Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 20.92. Vested right shall mean that the project shall have performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on a valid building permit issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance." Mr. Charles Dawkins, 2329 Pacific Drive noted: • Poor notification of this subject within the neighborhood. • My home is newly re -built and was rigorously examined by the City and neighbors. • Question if this amendment is necessary since there is a height and square foot limitation. Staff explained that a mailing list was developed of all the affected property owners notifying them that their properly could potentially be subject to this review. Additionally, within a 300 -foot radius we mailed notices to property owners as well as posted ten notices on stakes throughout the area. Kent Moor, 210 Carnation noted he received a notice and saw that the property was posted. I have met with staff and commend them that this item is up for review. My neighbors also concur with me and approve this amendment. He • noted the following in support: • 200 block of Carnation is one of the five G3 streets in Corona del Mar. This amendment is well thought out and will protect the overall integrity of the bluffs. Robert Lockleigh, Goldenrod Avenue homeowner noted the bluff is one of the premier overlook views in Southern California. Many people walk along this bluff throughout the years. Over time there has been an encroachment by the bluff top homeowners into the view space and public green belt on Ocean Boulevard. The rooflines continue to come up and the buildings continue to go out and you can't see the beach. He stated his support of this amendment, noting that this is not the taking of private property for public use, rather it is the private development blocking of public views. If you allow permits in progress to continue and they build these 12,000 square foot step down homes, the bluff will be destroyed. He then talked about the various sizes of houses in Corona del Mar. He closed by stating his support of this amendment. Scott Pine, architect with Danielian Associates, Irvine noted his opposition: • Policy in place now is very strong with floor area ratios and height limits. • Zoning Ordinance deals with issues that do not allow overly massive structures to be built unless it meets the guidelines. • To impose an additional hearing on a project that meets the guidelines of the Zoning Code seems over zealous. • We spend a lot of time on land development. Open space is important in development but is arguable at the beginning when land is being developed and you are dealing with bluffs and landforms that you want to 33 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX maintain. • Dealing with land already sold, makes it more difficult. Jerry Lutsky, 216 Poppy stated that this ordinance should have been in place before now. He expressed his concern that this does not go far enough as the bluffs along Hazel are on the same slopes and should be included. Jeanine Paquette, 211 Goldenrod noted that she received a card in the mail notifying her of the meeting. She noted her support of this amendment stating that the views and preservation of Newport Beach need to be upheld. Lawrence Tabak 3431 Ocean Boulevard stated: He did not receive a notice. • 50 year old home and is planning on rebuilding after checking with both the Planning and Building Departments. • Concerned about a moratorium of building on the bluff. • He has engaged an architect and has submitted plans to the Building Department today. • This procedure is unfair to me. Judy Hodgeson, 2200 Bayside Drive noted that on Pacific Drive there is a line of site restriction. She asked if her lot is a slope and prohibits building on her lot. She stated she is not in favor of this. • Tom Hood, 12 Pomona, Newport Coast stated he is in support of this ordinance and asked for an expansion of the language to include the bluffs along Hazel and the canyon. Ken Jorski, Pacific Drive asked if people are not able to build down the bluff does that take away their square footage allotment? I live on the opposite side of Pacific Drive and if the houses go higher, than I will be impacted. Carol Rudat, 254 Evening Canyon Road noted: • Overview by a panel is too arbitrary. • Need specific calculations in accordance to the lots. • This ordinance needs to apply everywhere along the bluffs. • All bluff dwellings should be treated the same. Jean Rooten, 219 Goldenrod stated she is very pleased to see that the bluffs are being protected. Corona del Mar bluffs are for the public and it is up to the Planning Commission to protect the public views and retain our California legacy. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich noted the following in response to the comments made during the public hearing: • The Planning Commission initiated this item a few months ago in a recommendation to the City Council that an urgency ordinance be • 34 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 adopted. This was in response to a variance request for a 12,000 square foot house on Breakers Drive at the end of Marguerite Avenue. The City Council did not feel an urgency ordinance was appropriate but did direct staff to develop a proposed method to deal with the Commission's concern. The Commission was concerned because the grading necessary for that proposal would have completely obliterated the bluffs and appeared to be in direct contradiction to the City's General Plan policies. In regards to where it is applied and not applied, the Commission felt this was an imminent problem that the City needed to deal with and look at the areas that were the most threatened. It is the Commission's intent that if this survives the process through the City Council, then it will be a zoning designation that can be carried forth in other bluff areas, if necessary. In response to public comments regarding notification of the public hearing on this item, the Planning Commission has been doing an experiment. When notification cards are mailed, staff sends a copy to each Commissioner. I personally got the notification card for this hearing the day after staff sent it out in the mail. What happens to those cards when they get to your individual mailbox, I don't know, but they are being mailed properly. e This is not an unusual concept in Newport Beach. As a long time owner of • property on lower Milford Drive in Cameo Shores I had restrictions on the development of that property due to the sensitive environmental nature of the property and only had use of 50% of the lot. This was due to restrictions on developing the portions of property that were in Morning Canyon. e This is a matter of public policy; there is a need to balance property rights with the good of the greater community. e 1 agree that some criteria are needed and that the review can not be completely arbitrary. But at the same time, there is a necessity now to get this ordinance in front of the City Council because there is a direct threat to the bluffs right now that is in contradiction to adopted city policy. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson stated that there is nothing to prevent anyone from applying for a building permit now. If they do not have their building permit by the time this is effective, they could still apply for the building permit. It is just that particular project would be subject to the Site Plan review which is from the General Plan policies on preservation of bluffs. Commissioner Tucker added that the ordinance would provide a mechanism for the Planning Commission to implement a policy that has been in the General Plan. This is not a moratorium, but it does have a procedure. The issue before us is, are we going to have a policy that has a review process or not. Commissioner Gifford noted that it was just recently that people started looking . at building homes on a much larger scale than we have seen in the past. At least two speakers tonight had come before us looking for variances to build 35 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX • more than their normal entitlement, one was approved, and one was not. The trend to build these much larger houses is what brought to the City's attention the fact that the policy had been adopted, but the mechanism for implementing the policy had not. Site Plan review is not some kind of new invention or something that is seldom used. It is a frequently used process and it does not provide any new restrictions, it simply implements an existing policy. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Resolution 1527 recommending approval of Amendment No. 908 to the City Council. The motion further recommended that staff immediately begin to develop criteria to evaluate applications that would come before the Planning Commission for review as it is important to have objective criteria. He further elaborated that perhaps the criteria could come out of the Land Use Element and be adopted as a separate, accompanying policy to the ordinance. The motion further stated that the criteria should go to the City Council along with this ordinance. Commissioner Tucker noted he would like to see this item continued to allow for more public input. He then expressed his reservation about the effective date. Chairperson Selich stated he was not in favor of continuing this item as it is such an important matter and time is of the essence. He stated that it needs to get to the City Council quickly in order for them to have a full review of the issue. He noted that it would be re- noticed in the paper and will probably also get a lot of news coverage. He also stated that the way staff has worded the effective date is fair and whatever cut -off date is picked, somebody will be affected. He further noted that this ordinance does not prohibit anyone from using their property and has no problem with the way the ordinance is worded. Commissioner Kiser noted his support of the comments made adding that it would be best to add some specific standards because of subjective decisions made by a committee. In view of the imminent potential of the destruction of Coastal bluffs to be included in this, that one or two structures proposed at 12,000 square feet and /or a five story would wipe out part of the bluff entirely. I would like to see this extended to other bluff areas if this works and seems appropriate. I would choose the earliest effective date possible. Ayes: All Ayes Noes: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon wood reported that, at the last meetings of the Council, a public outreach program for the Harbor and Bay Element was approved with a workshop on April 1 1 th and will then come to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. The Newport Riverboat Restaurant item was referred back to the Commission. The Rex Brandt Trust items were continued and will be back to the 36 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Council on April lath. she then distributed copies of the report on the General Plan Update Committee on their visioning process, which is on the Council agenda for April 10. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. e.) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - none. f.) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Mrs. Wood distributed copies of an article from the League of Cities magaane on the conflict of interest. g.) Project status - none. • h.) Requests for excused absences _ May 3fd, Commissioners Agajanion and McDaniel and May 171h, Commissioner Gifford. ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. 0 STEVEN KISER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 37 INDEX Adjournment