The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/06/1993\15h\0- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: Mav 6. 1993 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * All Commissioners were present. (Commissioner Pomeroy arrived at 7:48 p.m.) i : Y EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney Y Y Y William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager John Douglas, Principal Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x x x Minutes of April 22. 1993 Minutes of Motion -* Motion was made and voted on to approve the April 22, 1993, 4/22/93 Ayes * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain Absent x i Y Public Comments: Public Comment No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. i Y Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, April 30,1993, in front of City Hall. Y x x COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 [LOLL CALL INDEX Request for Continuances: Request for Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicants, Newport Via Lido Continue Associates and 503 Lido Partners, Ltd, have requested that Item. No. 4, Variance No. 1187 regarding property located at 3471 Via Lido, be continued to the June 10, 1993, Planning Commission meeting; that the applicant, EPT Landscape Architecture, has requested that Item No. 6, property located at 20 El Capitan, be continued to the May 20, 1993, Planning Commission meeting; that the applicants, BA Properties, regarding Item No. 10, Use Permit No. 3122 (Amended), property located at 309 Palm Street and Landing Associates, regarding Item No. 11, Use Permit No. 3076 (Amended), property located at 503 Edgewater Place, have requested that the items be continued to the meeting of May 20, 1993; and the applicant, Yros Marderos has requested that Item No. 12, Use Permit No. 3491, property located at 3491 Via Lido, be continued to the meeting of June 10, 1993. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue the foregoing items as Ayes * * * * requested. MOTION CARRIED. Absent : s Use Permit No 3497 (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to permit the installation of a portable, outdoor, coffee UP3497 cart on property located in the APF District. Approved LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 25 -14 (Resubdivision No. 271), located at 620 Newport Center Drive, on the northeasterly side of Newport Center Drive, between Santa Cruz Drive and Santa Rosa Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: APF APPLICANT: Riccardo Bosco, Huntington Beach -2- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Iult\IINI Mav 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Riccardo Bosco, applicant, appeared before the Planning. Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A '. There being no others desiring to appear and be beard, the public hearing was closed at this time, Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3497 Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. FINDINGS: . 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking will be available on -site to accommodate the proposed facility. 4. That the proposed outdoor coffee cart, as limited by the following conditions of approval, will not impede pedestrian circulation within the subject property. S. That the proposed coffee cart will be supportive of the existing office uses. 6. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3497 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 -3- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDMONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans, cart detail and elevation, except as noted below. 2. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapters 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 3. That no temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the coffee cart. 4. That the outdoor sales cart shall be limited to a maximum footprint of 18 square feet (as proposed). Sales shall be limited to gourmet coffee and other similar beverages, sodas, and incidental foot items. S. That no tables or seats shall be permitted adjacent to the cart location, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 6. That the employee shall park on -site at all times. 7. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations in close proximity to the coffee cart. 8. That all trash, including compact storage bags and recyclable containers, shall be stored within a screened area until it is to be picked up. 9. That the coffee cart shall not block entrances or exits of any building. 10. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify IDconditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to -4- COnDUSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH h�11► [It I iiArr, ,Mrix3 ROLL CALL INDEX the City Council the revocation of this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the. community. 11. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No 3493 (Continued Public Hearinel item No.. Request to permit the construction of a second dwelling unit uP3493 (Granny Unit) on property located in the R -1 District in . accordance with Chapter 20.78 of the Municipal Code that permits Approved a second dwelling unit if said residence is intended for one or two persons who are 60 years of age or older. LOCATION: Lot 8, Block 17, First Addition to Newport Heights, located at 310 El Modena Avenue, on the southeasterly side of El Modena Avenue, between Cliff Drive and Beacon Street, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Max Feuerberg, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Max Feuerberg, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". -5- COPAMSSIONERS 0�cf�`10 i�wC -N�* CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner DiSano and Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Feuerberg replied that his mother, Liela, age 68, and his uncle, Oscar, age 75, would be residing in the granny unit. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3493, Ayes * * * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION Mo * CARRIED. Absent Findings: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have a significant environmental impact. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3493 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That the second dwelling unit shall be limited to the use of one or two persons over the age of 60 years. -6- COMMISSIONERS RIFORAN0\0\ CITY O F NEWPORT BEACH I riIILI IIiI May 6 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the applicant shall record a Covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicants and successors in interest in perpetuity so as to limit the occupancy of the second dwelling unit to one or, two adults 60 years of age or over, and committing the permittee and successors to comply with current ordinances regarding Granny Units. Said covenant shall also contain all conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission or the City Council. 4. Commencing with the final inspection of the Granny Unit by a City Building Inspector and on an annual basis every year thereafter, the property owner shall submit to the Planning Director the names and birth dates of any and all occupants of the Granny Unit constructed pursuant to this approval to verify occupancy by a person or persons 60 . years of age or older. Upon any change of tenants, the property owner shall notify the City immediately. This information shall be submitted in writing and contain a statement signed by the property owner certifying under penalty of perjury that all of the information is true and correct. 5. That the primary residence or the Granny Unit shall be continuously occupied by at least one person having an ownership interest in the property. 6. That one of the covered parking spaces shall be for the exclusive use of the proposed Granny Unit. 7. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -7- MINUTES A \ \ \`P.el°Ate's'n�q' , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 1993 6, ROLL CALL INDEX A General Plan Amendment 92 -3 (E) (Continued Public Item No. Hearin GPA 92 -3. Request to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the. (Res 132 General Plan so as to increase the allowable size of the proposed LCP13 Interpretive Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport (Res 133' Bay Regional Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. and delete a secondary bicycle trail through the Westbay parcel; and A779 the acceptance of an environmental document. (Res 133 EIR AND (Res 132 13 Local Coastal Proeram Amendment No 31 (Continued Public Approved Hearing) Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so . as to increase the allowable size of the proposed Interpretive Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach LOCATION: The Westbay parcel, located at 2200 Irvine Avenue, southeasterly of the intersection of Irvine Avenue and University Drive. AND C. Amendment No. 779 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend a portion of Districting Maps No. 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 61 so as to redesignate portions of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park property from the "U" (Unclassified), R -3- B and R -4 -B -2 Districts to the P -C (Planned Community) District. LOCATION: The portions of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park between the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel in Santa Ana Heights and Jamboree -8- B 3) 1) 3) ot CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES INS MY11UP1'xl ROLL CALL INDEX Road (201 Bayview Way); and between Eastbluff Drive and the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve boundary adjacent to the mouth of Big Canyon (1900 Back Bay Drive).. ZONES: R -3 -B, R -4 -13-2 and Unclassified APPLICANT: The County of Orange OWNER: Same as applicant AND D Use Permit No 3488 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to approve a General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park, which would serve as a Planned Community Development Plan and regulations for the regional park. LOCATION: Upper Newport Bay Regional Park surrounds the northern portion of Upper Newport Bay in three separate parcels forming an arc from approximately Santiago Drive on the west to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve boundary adjacent to the mouth of Big Canyon on the east (2200 Irvine Avenue, 201 Bayview Way and 1900 Back Bay Drive). ZONES: P -C, R -3 -B, R -4 -13-2 and Unclassified APPLICANT: The County of Orange OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Gifford stated that inasmuch as she was absent from the April 22, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, that she listened to the audio tape of the proceedings. -9- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 194'1 ROLL CALL INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that subsequent to the April 22, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, the City Attorney's Office has advised that the City's ability to govern the development of the Park, in terms of the zoning and general plan,. is very limited. The Park is by and large owned by the County, and the County has the authority to plan, develop, and manage a County Park on the subject site. However, the City maintains Local Coastal Program responsibility over the site and the City and the County jointly share control, location and use of several easements on and across the site, and the City alone owns 6 acres of fee land in the middle of the site. The pedestrian and bicycle easements run the length of the site on the bay side of the property. The two easements that cross the site and connect with Irvine Avenue are located between Santa Isabel Avenue and 23rd Street, and between Monte Vista and Santa Isabel Avenue. The six acres that are owned by the City are located south of Monte . Vista. It is desirable that the County and the City concur on the size of the Interpretative Center and the location and use of the cross- easements which are to be relocated and the use of the Park land currently owned by the City. It is not the role of the City to micro- manage the use of the Park facilities. The County is presenting their plan to seek a final recommendation by the City Council. The basic issues as the staff perceives them are: (1) Should the existing bicycle trail on the east side of the Park be split with a pedestrian trail only on the top of the bluff and a bicycle pedestrian trail along Irvine Avenue. (2) Should the two bicycle /pedestrian easements that cross the site be combined into a single easement parallel to University Drive or should there be two easements: one parallel to University Drive and one parallel to the flood control channel which could be connected to a closed loop around the Park. (3) Should the Interpretative Center be increased in size from 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) wherein it states that the EIR provides sufficient 10 information for the public and decision makers to construct an -10- 0 ��o,, N � s�Io CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Iirrr.V11%] ROLL CALL INDEX array of alternatives even beyond those included in the project alternative section of the document. He indicated that it would appear that any combination of elements within the Park that are in the best interests of the public are appropriate for the Planning. Commission to consider. John Douglas, Principal Planner, stated that CEQA does not require that alternatives be precisely defined in an EIR to be approved or selected. Alternatives are presented in order to provide a variety for a range of reasonable choices or alternatives, with the purpose of finding a project that can avoid or r mmuze environmental damage through a change in the project or a change of location. It is not necessary that the alternative in the EIR describe exactly the project that is being approved. Commissioner Glover recommended that the "Planned Community" zoning designation for the Park property be redesignated to "Open Space ". Mr. Hewicker stated that in order for the Commission to redesignate the park property it would be necessary that the public hearing be readvertised. Mr. Hewicker explained that if it would be the desire of the Commission to ultimately see the park property in the "Open Space" zone that once the language of the Zoning District is made to satisfy all of the parties concerned, that it would be feasible to rezone the property from "Planned Community" to "Open Space ". The General Plan currently designates the property as "Open Space and Recreational Use ", and the only area within the General Plan that would need to be changed is the language pertaining to the size of the Interpretative Center. The General Plan would allow an Interpretative Center not to exceed 8,000 square feet, and if the Commission approved a Center larger than that, then the General Plan and the LCP could be amended so that the General Plan and the LCP are consistent with the plan. The public bearing continued at this time. Bob Fisher, Director of County Harbors, Beaches and Parks, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher stated that . subsequent to the April 22, 1993, Commission meeting that County -11- CON DUSSIONERS 0\1 �o0R4% CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX staff met with individuals regarding their desirability of an equestrian trail on the Westbay parcel, and also that the County would consider their environmental concerns. He presented the County's amended proposal to accommodate the public's concerns, as follows. Mr. Fisher referred to the exhibit area, and he described the area within the Westbay parcel that would provide the equestrian and pedestrian trail. The trail would terminate at the highest point along Irvine Avenue where there is the greatest vista point and a logical turn - around area. Below the vista point is a drainage channel (Santa Isabel Channel) which creates a barrier for trail use; therefore, it would be difficult to bring the equestrian trail further south and it introduces more opportunities for erosion and animal waste would be carried into the drainage channel and into the bay. Since continuation of the trail south of the vista point . should not provide a greater equestrian experience it would appear to be a logical terminus. Mr. Fisher stated that the County along with other cities has tried to complete a trail system that would extend up San Diego Creek, to Peters Creek, through Irvine, Tustin, Orange and into Irvine Regional Park. A second connection would be up San Diego Creek in Irvine, through Mason Regional Park, Bommer and Shady Canyons, and to the County's Laguna Coast Wilderness Park. Mr. Fisher addressed the Interpretative Center. He said that it is incorrect that 50 percent of the Center would be allocated for office space inasmuch as 10 percent would be devoted for office use and the balance is for exhibits, meeting rooms, research, and supplies area. The estimated cost of $1.8 million for the Center includes the parking area and the entry structure. A $1 million donation has been made for the construction of the Center. The parking plan provides parking for 100 automobiles. The Center and the parking lot would displace approximately 1 acre of the entire property or .6 percent of the park and .01 percent of the Upper Bay complex that the Center is intended to serve. Of the footprint, 10,000 square feet of the Center will be partially IDsubterranean with a natural soil and vegetative cover. Slides were -12- V1\0PA%\-k0 ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX then shown to the Commission displaying the concept for the proposed Center that is based on the Anza Borrego State Park Interpretative Center. The total cost of the park is estimated at $6.2 million, including the $1.8 million Interpretative Center, trails at $350,000., repair and control of erosion at $600,000., revegetation and irrigation needed to establish the plant material at $2.5 million. Long term maintenance will be paid for by funds from the residents of the Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Service area and from tideland revenues from the Newport Dunes. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding dogs on leashes, Mr. Fisher explained that the plan for the park provides for dogs on leashes except for the pedestrian trails. Commissioner Pomeroy concluded that dogs would not be allowed on the blufftop trail but they would be allowed on the equestrian portion of the Westbay area. Commissioner Glover commented that Interpretative Centers normally represent thousands of acres wherein she pointed out that the Anza Borrego Interpretative Center is 7,000 square feet. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the equestrian/pedestrian trail, Mr. Fisher explained that pedestrians would be allowed to use the bicycle trail in addition to the equestrian trail. Commissioner Gifford asked if the County discussed the expansion of the equestrian trails and the concerns regarding ecology with representatives of the City's Parks and Recreation Department subsequent to the April 22, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Fisher responded to the negative. Commissioner Gifford asked if the equestrian trails that lead to Peters Canyon and Laguna Wilderness are a shared trail system or exclusive equestrian. Mr. Fisher explained that the trails consists of bicycle trails, and equestrian/pedestrian trails. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford with respect to the parking plan, Mr. Fisher explained that parking would be provided on University -13- COAdMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6 199 ROLL CALL INDEX Drive outside of the park, and 100 automobiles would be parked on -site. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr.. Fisher explained that the 100 parking spaces would be for employees and visitors to the Park. Chairman Edwards asked if in the attempt to preserve and support the ecology of the Back Bay area, did the County take into consideration the affect that the airplanes may have on the horses, people, and the floor of the fauna of the area. Mr. Fisher explained that although staff may not have made a specific correlation of the factors, certainly that would be a part of the existing environment. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Commissioner Pomeroy stated that Borrego Springs consists of 600,000 acres. Chairman Edwards addressed the . proposed size of the Interpretative Center and the size of the regional park. Mr. Fisher explained that the park is 140 acres, and the ecological reserve and the park combined are approximately 850 acres. The intent is that the regional park would work with the ecological reserve and the Center will accommodate the Fish and Game and the County Park Ranger staffs to interpret and manage the entire area. Chairman Edwards stated that given that the County has utilization of a building in the active part of the Bay which is in excess of 1,000 square feet and the County is proposing to construct at least an 8,000 square foot Center for approximately 800 acres, it would appear that the Center would be disproportionate when considering Borrego Springs. Mr. Fisher explained that the proposed Center would accommodate many more visitors than the Borrego Springs facility. Orange County school children will be visiting the Center on a regular basis in the midst of a very large populated area. The function of the Center would be to try to provide some degree of control and direction of how the site is used. If there would be a gateway for visitors to the area there would be an opportunity to educate them to understand what they are visiting. Commissioner Merrill concurred that there would be a vast difference between the . Borrego Springs facility from the proposed Center. -14- COMMISSIONERS �o t4o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Fisher explained that the requested increase in size of the Interpretative Center from 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet would accommodate the projected functions of the Center. Mr. Hewicker requested that Mr. Fisher comment on the proposed long "U" circulation pattern as opposed to the closed loop. Mr. Fisher stated that the pedestrian trail extends around the bay to a point where it terminates rather than connects to another trail except for a minor connection, and one that would not be encouraged on Constellation Drive. Staff considered the possibility of making a connection between the bicycle and equestrian trails near Irvine Avenue to the pedestrian trail on the bluff top thinking that individuals may want to take the loop; however, when staff considered the public's experience of being close to the bay and away from autombiles why would they choose to make a connection to where it would be impacted with automobile noise and bicycles. Mr. Hewicker addressed the existing road used by the Flood Control District to clean and maintain the Flood Control channel, and if people use the road and it is not shown on the plan then it would appear the people would be trespassing. Mr. Fisher commented that the County would discourage the use of the connection between the bicycle trail to the pedestrian trail because the primary users would be mountain bikers. Commissioner Pomeroy described an area at the end of the trail above the marshy area adjacent to Constellation Drive that has an established path and has a spectacular view of the bay. Mr. Fisher stated that it is feasible that the area has a high biological value and that may be the reason why the foregoing trail was not perpetuated. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the path creates a natural loop at the end of the trail. Mr. Fisher explained that the area consists of habitat values that are significant: vernal pools, and gnatcatchers, etc. Chairman Edwards and Commissioner Pomeroy discussed the issue of standing water in the area; however, Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the area provides a . natural loop and the path is the closest to the bay because it is -15- COM USSIONER8 •K Clop" fo 21M3pIo \`�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH uu l►f'i�liFY I'�S+l�'L3c ROLL CALL MEX close to the bluffs. Mr. Douglas stated that a portion of the trail is within the ecological reserve and the County may not have the authority to establish a trail at the foregoing site. Commissioner Ridgeway addressed the Back Bay Drive. Mr. Fisher explained that the County originally proposed that Back Bay Drive be integrated into the park and that the road be given more of a recreational and pedestrian character than it currently has with automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, etc. and the County would maintain the road. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that Back Bay Drive is a one -way road, and is open 24 hours a day. Mr. Webb explained that the City Council has considered several proposals and to date the Council has not recommended a closure. The Commission currently has no function regarding Back Bay Drive. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that there is an inherent conflict between the regional park and Back Bay Drive wherein Mr. Webb disagreed. Chairman Edwards referred to the letters that were submitted to the Commission prior to the public hearing. Mr. Craig Bluell, 2282 Waterman Way, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. He referred to his letter expressing his concern regarding the continued secured future use of the public resource, and that access to the park be of utmost importance to the facility. He did not object to the development with the exception that the loop trail system be maintained. He said that the loop trail system would provide a different experience, i.e. a different path and a different opportunity for the individuals. In reference to the trail previously addressed by Commissioner Pomeroy at Constellation Drive, Mr. Bluell stated that inasmuch as the subject project is a coordinated effort that the County could work out an agreement with State Fish and Game to use the trail, and particularly since there is a significant elevation difference between the bay and the location of the trail. There is not only a vertical separation but there is also a . horizontal separation. It was explained to Mr. Bluell by the Fish -16- COMMISSIONERS ccocr,�, o�dr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX and Game Department that if the trail is so significant that it could be considered for use by the public. There are numerous signs posted along the area of the Upper Bay that allows biking and running in the established trails in the park area. He. addressed the importance of preserving the lower trails to protect the habitat. The decomposed granite surface that will be used for the proposed trails will be excellent for jogging. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Bluell indicated that he could not foresee a problem on the proposed shared trails. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the regional parks have a combined access of hiking, jogging, dirt biking, and equestrian use, wherein he indicated that it was his experience that the uses co- habitat in harmony. Assistant City Attorney Flory explained that to the extent that the trails are not connected or coordinated with the City owned easements and trails, the Commission has minimal jurisdiction over the trails: their use, where they are going to go, and what they are going to be used for. The concept of inner - governmental immunities affects the ability of the City or the Commission to make the land use decisions as detailed as they might be in other situations. Chairman Edwards concluded that the Commission can consider general macro - recommendations with regard to land use. Mr. Hewicker addressed the three easements controlled by the City and County wherein he indicated that the County is proposing to take two cross - easements that are relocatable and put them in one location adjacent to University Drive and not provide a second crossing further south. He asked if it is a good idea to have one connection at the top of the park parallel to University Drive or should there be two connections as they currently exist; therefore, creating a loop. Mr. Wayne Koluvek, 610 Tustin Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the bay does not exist as it . once did wherein he explained that the impact usage has an affect -17- COMMISSIONERS \11 4 0 0 'IN 0 WIMPORMN, �0\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX on the habitat, and if the trails would be limited there would be a reduction in impact. He cited reasons why the restoration of the bay would protect the native vegetation and habitat. The 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center is needed for the volunteers_ inasmuch as the existing facility is too small. Mr. Koluvek submitted letters to the Commission. Mr. Mike Murphy, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his support of the Upper Newport Bay as it exists. He suggested that the County consider leasing space in a structure that exists adjacent to the subject site instead of constructing an Interpretative Center and parking lot. The proposed Center would increase the number of people visiting the area. Commissioner Ridgeway supported Mr. Murphy's idea of utilizing adjoining structures for an Interpretative Center; however, he said that after he researched the idea he discovered that the idea was not . feasible. In response to comments posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Murphy explained that it was his opinion that the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park is safe. Mr. Jim Cokas, 3438 Irvine Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to support the County's plan for the management of the park, and the Interpretative Center. He expressed his concern regarding the exodus of the wildlife in the area. The housing developments have cut off their transit routes and more people are using the bay for recreational purposes in an unregulated fashion. Ms. Marilee Terrell, 1725 Port Charles Place, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the proposed project and to express her desire to preserve the environment. She addressed the expense of the project and the entrance fees that would be charged to the public to use the park. She expressed her concern that the development of the Interpretative Center would drive away the wildlife in the area. Ms. Terrell questioned why dogs on a leash would be restricted in the area. -18- COMMISSIONERS 00 ill Vlt;6e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX The Commission recessed at 9:07 p.m. and reconvened at 9:17 p.m. Ms. Patty Huber, representing the Orange County Department of. Education and Board of Education, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that the Interpretative Center and the regional park would be an educational benefit for students of all ages in Southern California. Commissioner Glover asked Ms. Huber if the Interpretative Center would be an opportunity to use the facility as a natural museum. Ms. Huber concurred wherein she explained that the Upper Newport Bay is unique not just biologically but historically and the Center would incorporate natural history. Mr. Hewicker explained that the 8,000 square foot facility was . approved in the Amendment to the General Plan in 1988. Ms. Denise Sullivan, 34 Baycrest Court, appeared before the Planning Commission She submitted a petition with over 350 signatures requesting that the Commission continue the request of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park to June 10, 1993, so the option can be clarified and so the Commission can make a well- informed decision. The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve adjacent to the park is a very sensitive and important area. The Upper Newport Bay Regional Park surrounds and should honor the ecological reserve but the current recommended plan is not acceptable. They requested additional time so as to make the best possible recommendation to the Newport Beach City Council. She acknowledged the County's revised proposed project and the residents' concerns regarding the equestrian and bicycle trails. T'he biggest impact and one of great concern is the enlargement of the Interpretative Center and the parking area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Sullivan replied that her primary concern is the Center and the parking area. Ms. Donna McMeikan, 20422 Bayview Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to express her concerns regarding the 10 "Planned Community" zoning. She indicated that many people -19- COIYIIMSSIONERS 60141PIRRN1111, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX would feel more comfortable with an "Open Space" zoning designation inasmuch as it would not leave any options open. Ms. Penny Pilgrim, 3436 Irvine Avenue, appeared before the. Planning Commission to support the proposed County plan and the 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center. She stated that she questions the importance of the recreational needs when it is at the expense of the wildlife. The existing facilities are not adequate for the number of tours that are currently being provided. Mr. Frank Robinson, 1007 Nottingham Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. The 8,000 square foot Interpretative Center was originally suggested without any study for the project, and the 10,000 square feet came into existence after the architect was hired and worked out the design of the needs. The purpose of the minimized trails is to consolidate as broad and as large an area as . possible to do the maximum amount of restoration for the wildlife system, and that is much easier in large areas than in small spaces. Mr. Gus Chabre, 1130 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he expressed his support of the 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center. He is a volunteer with the Upper Newport Bay Reserve group, and as a group they are volunteering over 9,00(1 hours of time or nearly double from when the group started a few years ago. There is a great need to expose the park to the public inasmuch as it will have an influence on the children who are not exposed to the great resources. Mr. Dean Cheley, 15201 Brighton Street, Westminster, appeared before the Planning Commission as a high school student and one of the naturalists in the program. He stated that the regional park allows the students to have a hands -on experience, and he expressed his support of the 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center if it would provide the students with more information. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Cheley stated that he is a volunteer naturalist with the program and he works closely with the rangers. -20- COAUMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Frank Selby, 307 Catalina, appeared before the Planning Commission as a volunteer naturalist at the regional park on a daily basis. He expressed his objections of the equestrian trails and riders. In response to a question posed by Chairman. Edwards, Mr. Selby explained that the 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center is a compromise and the existing facility is inadequate. Ms. Shirley Green, 10211 Cliff Drive, Huntington Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission as the tour guide coordinator for the regional park, and coordinates the tours for the school children. She has scheduled 145 school tours during the past 18 months and the average size of the tour is approximately 60 children. Ms. Green explained the experiences that the school children are provided when they visit the park and the benefits . they would have from an Interpretative Center. Mr. Bill Anderson, 2089 Orange Avenue, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed his concerns regarding the proposal to restrict dog owners with their dogs whereby he commented that the back bay belongs to dog owners and dogs as much as they do to other users. Mr. John Scholl, Wildlife Naturalist with the Department of Fish and Game, assigned to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. For the past four years the County of Orange and the Fish and Game Department have worked together to develop an outdoor education program, and a volunteer program with the idea that as the number of school children are increased it is necessary to have an educational center for supplies and it would provide an opportunity to meet program needs and schedules. He emphasized the importance of the Upper Newport Bay Estuary wherein he indicated that it is the largest estuary in Southern California. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Scholl stated that the trail at Constellation Drive previously . addressed by Commissioner Pomeroy is currently not a designated -21- PO *1 IQ t �s • c`�y�0\N 4 �1k0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX trail and restoration work needs to be done in the area. There is an ongoing problem with people letting dogs off leash into habitat that is critical and needs to be protected. A portion of the area is in the ecological reserve and a wildlife biologist would have to. determine what impact the trail would have. Commissioner DiSano addressed the dirt road above the Santa Isabella channel and the fence and gate that currently exist wherein he asked if a path could be connected from the pedestrian path to the equestrian path. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that it was his impression that the public is not allowed in the ecological reserve. Mr. Scholl stated that there is an opportunity for guided tours within close proximity into a part of the ecological reserve; however, the Department is protective of the reserve because of the habitat that exists there. . Mr. Scholl stated that there are no designated trails entering the ecological reserve with the exception of Back Bay Drive that runs along the edge of the estuary system. Mr. Scholl, Commissioner Ridgeway and Mr. Webb discussed how the estuary will be maintained in consideration of the watershed that is above it, i.e.: the silting and the ongoing cooperative effort between governmental agencies. Commissioner Ridgeway concluded that if something is not done then the estuary becomes landfill and then what good is the park. Commissioner Pomeroy concluded there is an established trail at bay level in Westbay that is below the bluff and there is access from the wood bridge. The trail travels below the bluff with the exception of 100 yards. He stated that approximately 90 percent of the bluff is covered with natural vegetation without massive erosion. Mr. Scholl explained that as there is more volunteer power there will be designated trails as a part of the ecological reserve to add to the County trails. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that portions of the trail could be opened up without damage to the ecology. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Scholl explained that the County is not currently -22- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav fi_ 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX developing a trail at the bay's edge with the Fish and Game Department. Ms. Frances Gioia, 392 Sunrise Circle, Costa Mesa, appeared. before the Planning Commission. She said that the Interpretative Center would be impractical for the public that is using Back Bay Drive. She pointed out that tours are currently being conducted on Eastbluff Drive and the proposal would shift the traffic to the Westbay area. In reference to the trail at the bottom of the bluff proposed by Commissioner Pomeroy, she explained that the trail is the quietest area on the Westbay parcel for the public to use. Mr. Jeff Hamilton, 20102 Cypress Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. He described his experiences as a National Park Service Ranger in sensitive environmental areas and he indicated that the parks did not have Interpretative Centers . because it was not the philosophy of the park service. He stated that the students need hands -on experiences in the field and not an indoor Interpretative Center. Mr. Jim Dixon, 2115 Indian Springs Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission. He indicated that access to the park has been limited to University Avenue with minor access off of Constellation Drive. The public has been provided access to the park by walking directly across Irvine Avenue to the park and it would be inconvenient to be forced to go to University Avenue. Ms. Martha Wetzel, 13742 Onkyha, Irvine, appeared before the Planning Commission. She commended the County for recognising the public's concern requesting an equestrian trail on Westbay parcel. The trail satisfies the Orange County Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trail goals which calls for establishment of new trails as logical extensions of existing trails, especially where local demand is high. She requested a verification from the County that the extension would be shown as Trail No. 44 in both the text and graphics of the Orange County Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails. -23- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mau 6 199'A ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy asked if there would be time restrictions for use of the bluff top trail. Mr. Fisher reappeared before the. Planning Commission to explain that the park hours have been established from 7:00 a.m. to sunset; however, there will be people that will access the park before and after the designated hours. The County does not want to encourage the public to come to the park at any hour for safety purposes. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the hours be amended from sunrise to sunset. Mr. Fisher explained that the hours of operation are intended to define when the park will be staffed and when the facilities will be available, and there is no definition of open but unstaffed. Commissioner Pomeroy asked if dogs on leashes will have use of the bluff top trail. Mr. Fisher responded that it would not be under the County's proposal; however, the dogs would have use of . the equestrian trail on the Westbay parcel. Commissioner Pomeroy asked if the County considered access to the lower bay area in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Fisher explained that the issue was asked of the County's biologist and the Fish and Game Department has concluded that access should not be provided to the public. Commissioner Glover asked why there is not a walking entrance from Irvine Avenue to the regional park. Mr. Fisher explained that the County was strongly advised on the issue by the County Traffic Engineer and it is an understanding that the City Traffic Engineer concurs with that decision. The access would encourage people to dangerously run across the street and the County would be establishing a liability. Commissioner Ridgeway asked why the County has not taken an active role in developing a trail . along the bay. Mr. Fisher explained that the biological consultants and the Fish and Game Department have indicated that there would be a problem for wildlife. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Fisher stated that the proposed bicycle trail along . Irvine Avenue has not been designed; however, the existing bicycle -24- COMMISSIONERS • ��y�O�t�'P'PO��'O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES AA xr A root ROLL CALL INDEX trail is immediately adjacent to the curb and gutter of Irvine Avenue and the preliminary design moves the trail inward from the present area. Commissioner Ridgeway and Mr. Fisher discussed Commissioner Ridgeway's concerns that pedestrians. would not have access to a trail adjacent to Irvine Avenue whereby Mr. Fisher indicated that the pedestrians would have access to the bicycle trail in the park although there would not be a posted sign indicating that the park is open. Mr. Fisher stated that if there would be a problem concerning the pedestrians then the County could modify the park opening ordinance to provide for a trail. Mr. Hewicker explained that the property line between the edge of Irvine Avenue and the park is 10 feet inside the face of curb, and that the bikeway and pedestrian trail will meander between back of curb and the inside edge of the park as it goes along Irvine Avenue. Once the new trail is established then the asphalt bicycle trail along Irvine Avenue will be removed. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that he wanted to encourage a meandering trail; however, he is requesting that the trail be open to the public 24 hours a day. Mr. Hewicker stated that if a bicyclist or pedestrian are not able to use the new trail that parallels Irvine Avenue, then the users would be forced to use the westside of Irvine Avenue. Commissioner Merrill asked if it is the intention of the County to include displays, replications, and audio visual items that will be presented to the students in the Interpretative Center. Mr. Fisher stated that the displays will depict everything that occurs in the ecological reserve. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Nancy Bruland, park ranger assigned to Upper Newport Bay Regional Park, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Bruland stated that over 12,000 people participated in the interpretative programs in 1992; however, there is no record of the number of people that enter through the Westbluff parcel, the Santa Ana Heights parcel, or the Eastbay parcel. She estimated that an average of 1,800 walk -ins enter the park on a monthly basis. The 12,000 people does not include the Orange County Department of Education, the City of Anaheim, or the colleges. -25- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 ROLL CALL. INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Ms. Bruland explained that the program commences at Shellmaker Island where her office is located. The individuals involved with canoes, kayaking, or marine functions would take place off of Shellmaker Island; however, walking tours would commence the majority of the time from the Interpretative Center. Mr. Webb said that the County Traffic Engineer made a recommendation that no perpendicular connections be made because there could potentially be liability if a connection lined up with the street and a pedestrian was injured crossing the street because there are no controls at the intersections. In reference to the City's records, Mr. Webb stated that there is no record of a pedestrian accident from the surrounding streets to the park. He questioned the lack of perpendicular access into the park at least in one or two different places. The City has a six acre parcel at . Monte Vista Avenue that could be considered for perpendicular access, and would be in the middle of the park. Commissioner Ridgeway pointed out that there would be a two foot wall at the parameter of the park and it could be difficult for certain individuals to climb over a two foot wall. Mr. Webb stated that those concerns are design details that will be considered by the City. Commissioner Ridgeway referred to page 82, of the EIR, stating that the current condition of Back Bay Drive does not conform to safety standards and has potential liability problems.... and he indicated that mitigation measures are recommended in the EIR concerning the safety issues. He stated that it would be irresponsible of the Commission not to make a recommendation concerning the Back Bay Road. Commissioner Ridgeway made a recommendation that there be a good faith attempt between the County and the City to work out an agreement regarding safety concerns and access on Back Bay Drive. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the High Intensity Alternative in the EIR, page 116, wherein it states that it is the opinion of the . City of Newport Beach that the alternative may be superior to the _26_ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav F_ 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX project because it affords the same human activity in the park that currently exists. Mr. Douglas responded that it is the official staff position to make no staff recommendation. Mr. Fisher stated that the consultants that prepared the EIR sought an opinion from staff. regarding the issue and received that response to their question; however, staff has now formulated a position at a later date as a result of subsequent meetings. Commissioner Pomeroy concluded that there is a conflict between active and passive use and he questioned if that issue could be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone. He suggested that the Commission should accommodate to the highest degree possible the preservation of open space and active use of the open space. He commended the County for returning to the Commission with an equestrian trail in the Westbay, and he supported the City's concern about not having loop trails in the area. He would not support the recommended plan without having loop trails that make access more convenient, i.e. a method of connecting the bicycle and equestrian hiking trail with the bluff top trail at the southern end of the park otherwise the public will find a method to enter the preserved area. He emphasized that there is no reason why dogs cannot be on leashes on the bluff top trail. He suggested that the County explore with the Department of Fish and Game access to the lower bay providing it can be facilitated without damaging the environment. He would not support hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. if they would be posted in that manner; however, he would support sunrise to sunset. He supported the 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center inasmuch as it would be planning for the future and it is important to the entire 880 acre parcel. Commissioner Glover acknowledged the County's revisions to the project based on the concerns expressed during the April 22, 1993, Planning Commission public hearing, and the County's recommendation of the Westbay equestrian trail. She indicated she was opposed to an Interpretative Center, including the approved 8,000 square foot Center. Primary concerns would be -27- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mnv K_ 1993 [ROLL CALL INDEX that the Center would include retail and office uses. The proposed park is more of an urban park and, in the future years, will the Center continue to grow so it can be larger. Will the Coastal Commission require more than 100 parking spaces. Based on the. number of people currently visiting the park, the traffic will be moved from Jamboree Road to Irvine Avenue. She stated that the facility will require employees, and unless the State of California, County of Orange, and City of Newport Beach say "no ", problems will continue and the children will have many problems. The classrooms are bulging over and it is difficult to educate the children in the confines of a classroom wherein she indicated that she has fiscal concerns. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that he considered the EIR inadequate and he stated that the following were not addressed in the document: the watershed that flows into the Upper Bay Ecological Reserve; he was not certain of the flights or expansion of the airport; fuel coming into the plant life; the document addressed flora and fauna in areas that were not in the park and animal life at the University of Irvine. He requested that the Back Bay Drive conflict be worked out. Inasmuch as the City of Newport Beach owns six acres, and the park is in the Sphere of Influence, the Commission has a function to make recommendations to the City Council. He concurred with statements made by others that the regional park is deteriorating; he supports the loop trail, the equestrian trail, dogs on leashes on trails, replanting, the zoning should ultimately be amended to Open Space, and supports a trail along the bay on the Westbay parcel to the extent that it does not upset the habitat. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that there is not an adequate population using the park to support a 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center, and an 8,000 square foot structure would be adequate. If the same parking ratio would be used then the parking lot would correspondingly be reduced to 80 automobiles, and it would reduce the land area by about 10,000 square feet. He suggested that the parking lot consist of landscape islands with the native vegetation. -28 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav fi_ 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Gifford commended the County for addressing the concerns of the people. She suggested that the Commission not attempt to micro-manage the regional park. There may be a great deal of degradation in the environment and it may be necessary to, back off to permit restoration and allow the habitat to be restored; however, the area could open up more to the public as appropriate. She would not support the issues of where the dogs should be allowed on leashes, or exactly what the posted hours should be. She supported the Interpretative Center based on the amount of education that would be provided about the bay and the contribution it would make to the future preservation of the area. The public's usage figures should determine the size of the Center so as to adequately serve the area. The office use would be limited and the remaining area would be effectively used for the volunteers and for educational purposes. She supported the basic plan; however, she would not support the recommendations . that tread into the area of micro - management. Commissioner Ridgeway and Commissioner Gifford discussed the issue of the Commission making recommendations of micro- management. Commissioner Pomeroy concurred that the Commission should not Motion * micro- manage. Motion was made to recommend to City Council Environmental Impact Report No. 525 (Resolution No. 1328), General Plan Amendment No. 92 -3(E) (Resolution No. 1329), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 31 (Resolution No. 1330), Amendment No. 779 (Resolution No. 1331), and Use Permit No. 3488 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", subject to the following modifications: that a provision be made for loop trails to provide access from Irvine Avenue trails to the bluff top trail; that dogs on leashes be allowed on the bluff top trail; and that the County be encouraged to work with the Fish and Game Department to provide access from the regional park to the lower bay. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker confirmed that the equestrian trail on the Westbay parcel would be included in the foregoing County proposal. -29- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Ridgeway requested an amendment to the motion that would include a mutual agreement between the City and the County on Back Bay Road. Mr. Hewicker explained that the concern is an on -going issue that is being considered between the. County and the City. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the City Council will be charged with certifying the EIR, and the EIR states that a permit cannot be issued without working out the agreement. Ms. Flory explained that the City is a responsible agency and does not approve the EIR in final form. The Commission is making a determination on the zoning considerations, and the issues of trails and how they would be used can be made as a recommendation but cannot be made as a condition of approval. The EIR is not an approval of the project, it is looking at alternatives and making recommendations of the alternatives in the EIR. Chairman . Edwards clarified that the Commission is not the decision making body with regards to the EIR, that is a County purview. Mr. Douglas explained that the EIR contains a mitigation measure regarding Back Bay Drive, and following a discussion with the County, Mr. Fisher recommended that the mitigation measure be deleted from the City's approval action because at the time the EIR was written and the mitigation measure was inserted, the County felt that the issue would have been resolved by the time it came to the City; however, the issue has not been resolved and the two legal questions regarding CEQA would be "would deletion of the mitigation measure cause any significant adverse environmental affects, and would the deletion of the mitigation measure cause a substantial change to the project description ". A "yes" answer to either of those questions would require that the EIR be revised and recirculated. The question to the Commission and the City Council is would any significant adverse affects result from deleting it, or would it be a substantial change to the project. substitute Substitute motion was made to recommend to the City Council lotion General Plan Amendment No. 92 -3(E), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 31, Amendment No. 779, and Use Permit No. . 3488, subject to Exhibit "X. Commissioner Merrill stated that he -30- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX could not support the recommendations as stated in the original motion; therefore, he suggested that the Commission straw vote the recommendations as stated in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Gifford supported the substitute motion as requested by Commissioner Merrill. Commissioner Merrill suggested that the project be approved with a Planned Community designation with the recommendation that the Open Space designation be considered in the future. Chairman Edwards stated he would not support the substitute motion because he does not support the size of the Interpretative Center. 0 Substitute motion was voted on, MOTION DENIED. on 3- Commissioner Pomeroy withdrew his original motion so as to take withdrawn straw votes of recommendations to the City Council. Lower Bay Straw vote was taken regarding access to the lower bay provided Access * * * * there is cooperation between the County and the Fish and Game Department. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Yes NO * * * Gifford, Chairman Edwards explained that the intent is to make a recommendation to explore the idea. Loop Trail Straw vote was taken regarding loop trails. Yes Straw vote was taken regarding revised equestrian trails as Equestriar. ** * ** proposed by the County. Yes No _ Straw vote was taken to redesignate the Planned Community Rezoning zoning to Open Space zoning. Yes _ No - Straw vote was taken regarding accommodation between the City Back Bay and the County regarding the Back Bay Road. Commissioner Yes * * * * * Ridgeway recommended that the issue be worked out prior to the _. certification of the EIR and the approval of the entire project. -31- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Douglas explained that the mitigation measures states that prior to issuance of building and grading permits or construction on the park, the issue of Back Bay Drive has to be resolved. In response to Ms. Flory, Commissioner Ridgeway explained that his. request is to make a recommendation to the City Council to Dogs on address the issue now and not later. Leash Yes * * Straw vote was taken regarding dogs on leash. No Interpret Straw vote was taken regarding the Interpretative Center. (Green Center * * light approved the 10,000 square feet, White light approved less than 8,000 square feet, and Red light approved the 8,000 square Green White * * feet). Red Motion was made to recommend to City Council Environmental on * Impact Report No. 525 (Resolution No. 1328), General Plan Amendment No. 92 -3(E) (Resolution No. 1329), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 31 (Resolution No. 1330), Amendment No. 779 (Resolution No. 1331), and Use Permit No. 3488 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W, including the results of the straw vote recommendations. In response to a question posed by Mr. Douglas, Commissioner Pomeroy explained that the loop trail would provide access from the bluff top trail to Irvine Avenue. All ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Finding: That the Planning Commission has reviewed Final EIR No. 525, prepared by the County of Orange as Lead Agency, and finds that it satisfies the requirements of CEQA for the City of Newport Beach in its capacity as a Responsible Agency. -32- COMMISSIONERS • ��, O Ode's CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 6 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction documents for the Interpretive Center,. including the final geotechnical report, shall be submitted to the Manager, Development Services. The report will be based on 80 -scale maps and will primarily involve assessment of potential soil related constraints and hazards, such as landslides, settlement, liquefaction, or related seismic impacts where determined to be appropriate by the County of Orange. The report shall also include evaluation of potentially expansive soils and recommend construction procedures and /or design criteria to minimize the effects of these soils on the proposed project, as well as an analysis of soils properties to determine any existence of soluble sulfate in the soil. The report shall also establish . foundation design parameters. This report shall recommend appropriate mitigation measures for the grading and shall be completed in a manner specified by the County of Orange Grading Code. 2. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the contract plans shall be submitted to the Program Manager, Transportation Planning including requirements to meet: SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during earth moving operations, soil binders to be spread on construction sets or unpaved roads and /or parking areas; street sweeping of roads adjacent to the project site, that trucks be washed off before leaving the construction site, that construction equipment be properly maintained and tuned, and that grading be suspended during second stage (or worse) smog alerts. 3. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the contract plans shall be submitted to the Program Manager, Transportation Planning including requirements that construction personnel should be provided with preferential • parking for carpools, bicycle racks, and free bus passes. -33- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES nrn.. r 1001 ROLL CALL WDEX Parking for construction personnel should not interfere with traffic flows. Personnel parking and construction vehicle staging areas shall be placed in a manner to avoid sensitive resources on the property. Construction affecting roadways should be performed during non -peak hours. A flag person should be provided during times when construction affects roadways , and one lane in each direction should remain open. 4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the following measures shall be incorporated into the project in a manner meeting the approval of the Program Manager, Transportation Planning: a. Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public transit usage and providing • secure bicycle facilities. b. Provide mass transit accommodations such as bus turnout lanes, park and ride areas, and bus shelters. C. Provide energy- conserving lighting. d. Provide landscaping with native drought resistant plant species to shade buildings during summer. 5. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract, the following drainage studies shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches & Parks /Parks Design: a. A drainage study of the project site including diversions, off -site areas that drain onto and /or through the project, and justification for any diversions; and i -34- COMUSSIONERS 0 � A� d��R�a �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX b. A drainage study demonstrating that proposed drainage patterns will not overload existing storm drains; and C. Detailed drainage studies indicating how the project grading in conjunction with the drainage conveyance system including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100 -year flood. 6. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract, the contract and plans, including the following improvements, shall be submitted for approval to the . Manager, Harbors, Beaches, and Parks /Parks Design: a. All provision for surface drainage; and b. All necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, said improvements shall be constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, EMA /Construction Division. 7. Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicant (County or contractor) shall obtain approval of an NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Said permit shall specify appropriate storm water Best Management Practices to be incorporated into the project to ensure an acceptable level of control of non -point pollution sources. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction documents shall be submitted for the . review and approval of the Manager, EMA /Harbors, -35- • \PON 'i' o��'o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Beaches, and Parks /Parks Design. Said plans shall indicate the following: a. Landscaping and trails are sited in such a manner as. to not disturb the scattered populations of Southern Tarplant. Individual plants to be disturbed shall be transplanted to appropriate habitat; and b. If establishment of the 'vernal pool" is undertaken, it shall be done in a manner so as to not disturb the hydrologic or vegetative character of the area, especially the limited alkaline wetland habitat adjacent to the proposed "Vernal Pool "; and C. The "Vista del Playa" access shall he relocated such that the California Gaatcatcher habitat which it . currently crosses is not disturbed. d. The trails serving the Interpretive Center shall be relocated, or appropriate buffer provided, to protect the burrowing owl nesting site. 9. For any archaeological site which may be adversely impacted, a County- certified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to perform a subsurface test level investigation and surface collection as appropriate. The test level report evaluating the site shall include discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations and cost estimates. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and /or display them at this time, in which case items shall be donated to County, or designee. Final mitigation shall be carried out . based upon the recommendations and a determination as -36- CoBUMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX to the site's disposition by the Manager, EMA /Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning Division. Possible determinations include, but are not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage or no mitigation necessary. Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the contract and plans shall be provided to the Chief, EMA /Regulation /Grading Section, including written evidence that a County- certified archaeologist has been retained, shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the salvage, sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to . the Manager, EMA /Harbors, Beaches, and Parks /Program Planning Division. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions for exploration and /or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and /or display them at this time, in which case items shall be donated to County, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Manager, EMA /Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning Division. 10. Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the contract and plans shall be provided to the Chief, EMA /Regulation /Grading Section, including written evidence that a County - certified paleontologist has been retained to conduct pregrading salvage, observe any grading activities, salvage fossils as necessary, and prepare a -37- COMMISSIONERS •�t� O�gf��dlG�S - `4,f0�1G�'� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX catalogue of the exposed resources. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre- grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish procedures for temporarily. halting or redirecting work to permit the salvage, sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered, which require long -term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the Manager, EMA /Harbors, Beaches, and Parks /Program Planning Division. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions to ensure proper exploration and /or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and /or display them at this time, in which case items shall be donated to County, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Manager, EMA /Harbors, Beaches, and Parks /Program Planning Division. The paleontologist shall submit a follow -up report for approval by the Manager, EMA /Harbors, Beaches, and Parks /Program Planning Division, which shall include the period of inspection, methodology, an analysis of the artifacts found, a catalogue of artifacts, and their present repository. 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit including grading, for the Interpretive Center, plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Manager, EMA /Harbors, Beaches and Parks /Parks Design and the Newport Beach Building Director. Said plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Newport Beach 24/28 -foot height limit. shall be designed so as to minimize adverse impacts to public views from Irvine Avenue. and shall indicate that -38- COM MSSIONER6 %�Rkmw\\\Iao CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX non - reflective glass shall be used on all windows overlooking Upper Newport Bay. 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading,. the construction documents shall be submitted for approval to the Manager, Development Services and the Newport Beach Building Director for the area surrounding the Interpretive Center, ensuring that the parking lot shall be landscaped, equipped for irrigation, and improved as stated below: a. Preliminary Plan - Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a preliminary landscape plan, indicating use of native and drought tolerant species, and a cost estimate shall be submitted for the review and . approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division. b. Detailed Plan - Prior to the initiation of construction, a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager, Subdivision Division and the Newport Beach Public Works Department. Detailed plans shall show the detailed landscaline and irrigation designs, and the preservation of views from Irvine Avenue. C. Installation Certification - Prior to the issuance of final certificates of use and occupancy, said improvements shall be installed and shall be certified by a licensed landscape architect as having been installed in accordance with the approved detailed plans. Said certification shall be furnished in writing to the Manager, EMA /Public Works /Construction Division and the Newport Beach Building_ Director. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading the County shall submit an application to the City of . Newport Beach for amendment of the City's General Plan -39- *\N4P010N%W\1t%\%V0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX and Local Coastal Program to accommodate the 10,000 square foot Interpretive Center as proposed. After approval by the City, said approvals and an application for a Coastal Development Permit shall be referred to the. State Coastal Commission for approval. 14. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, whichever occurs first, a plan for the ultimate use and configuration of Back Bay Drive shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Director, EMA /Transportation and the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. Said plan shall consider, at a minimum, the following: a. access controls (e.g., gates, etc.) b. hours of use C. vehicle connections to the Eastbluff area . d. ultimate pavement cross- section e. bicycle access. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, an access and parking plan for the Interpretive Center shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Director, EMA /Transportation and the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. Said plan shall indicate that access and parking have been designed to appropriate standards for sight distance, parking and accessways, bus and vehicle tum -outs, etc. 16. Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering, or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which -40- COMMSSIONERS P L MP 851011 � �� tftlo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 1L1FVW1 LLTd ROLL CALL INDEX produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or on any holiday. 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction documents shall be submitted for approval to the Manager, Development Services, including written evidence that: a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. b. All operations shall comply with Orange County • Codified Ordinance Division 6 (Noise Control). C. Stockpiling and /or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from dwellings. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3(E) Adopt Resolution No. 1329 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 92 -3(E). C. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO, 31 Adopt Resolution No. 1330 recommending City Council approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 31. D. AMENDMENT NO. 779 Adopt Resolution No. 1331 recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 779. E. USE PERMIT NO. 3488: • -41- ov CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mau F 100' ROLL CALL INDEX Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 3. That the establishment of the regional park will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3488 will not result in abrupt scale relationships between the subject site and the neighboring properties. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3488 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed regional park use will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan for Upper Newport Bay Regional Park except as noted below. 2. That all the Mitigation Measures contained in Final EIR 525 shall be fulfilled as conditions of approval. • -42- %�'° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 "l l ROLL CALL INDEX 3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the Westbay portion of the park, the County of Orange shall prepare and record an easement acceptable to the City Attorney showing the relocation of the pedestrian and. bicycle trails if these trails are not provided in the location shown in the existing easement. 4. That a Coastal Development Permit shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance . with state and local requirements. 6. That the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 8. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090(A) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. In addition, the normal hours of park operation specified in the County's General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan for Upper Newport Bay Regional Park shall not be interpreted so as to prohibit visitors from using park trails at other times when the park is not staffed. -43- C0PAMSSIONERS '�O� G'lOo-l�dd�dr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX The Commission recessed at 11:30 p.m. and reconvened at 11:35 p.m. Variance No. 1187 (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to reduce the number of required off -street parking V1187 spaces which are provided for an existing office building located at 503 32nd Street and which are located at an off -site location at coast / a to the rear of the Via Lido Plaza Shopping Center in the RSC -H 6/10/93 District. Under the existing parking arrangement, 24 restricted parking spaces are provided to the customers and business invitees of the office building. The applicants propose to reduce the number of required off - street parking spaces to 12 and remove the existing use restriction so as to allow tenants and employees of the • office building to also use the off -site parking spaces. The proposal also includes a request to amend a previously approved off -site parking agreement consistent with the revised parking figures. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 85 -1 (Resubdivision No. 516), located 3471 Via Lido, on the southwesterly corner of Via Lido and Via Oporto (parking site); and Lot 6, Tract No. 907, located at 503 32nd Street, on the northeasterly corner of 32nd Street and Via Oporto (office building) in Central Newport. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANTS: Newport Via Lido Associates, Orange; and 503 Lido Partners, Ltd., Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicants . requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission -44- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX meeting of June 10, 1993, so as to allow additional time to prepare for the public hearing. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Variance No. 1187 to_ Ayes * * * * * * the June 10, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. Absent s s s Chairman Edwards suggested, and the Commission concurred, that Item No. Item No. 5 be removed from the Agenda until Items 6 through 12 have been heard. Mod 4ose Modification No. 4056 (Public Hearing) Approved Request to permit the construction of a . retaining wall and related glass guard rail with an overall height of 13 feet on property located in the R -1 -13 District. The subject construction will encroach 19 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback on the view side of the property. The applicant proposes to fill the area behind the proposed retaining wall, thereby creating a terraced yard area. LOCATION: Lot 7, Tract No. 3660, located at 2815 Harbor View Drive, on the southwesterly side of Harbor View Drive, between Marguerite Avenue and Goldenrod Avenue, in Harbor View Hills. ZONE: R -1 -13 APPLICANT: Joseph L. LePage, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant • -45- 1%VFr0\1RR4*-\40 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES IuMT1 ''1'Y3 ROLL CALL INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that a letter to the Commission from the Newport -Mesa Unified School District dated May 5, 1993, had been received by staff prior to the subject public hearing. Don Webb, City Engineer, addressed Condition No. 5, Exhibit "A ", stating That the proposed encroachment shall be designed to drain to Harbor View Drive, unless the Newport-Mesa School District approves a drainage easement over its property. He explained that the Grading Engineer recommended the condition in Exhibit "A ", and the applicant's representative asked if there might not be another option that the applicant's engineers could work out. The grading engineer stated that the condition could be modified to add or another design is approved by the City Grading Engineer at the end of the condition. The Grading Engineer was not aware of another situation to deal with the drainage; however, he would be willing to work with the applicant's engineer. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Buzz Person appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Person concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" as modified. He indicated there are five issues concerning the project: hydrology, aesthetics, view obstruction, privacy, and precedence. The applicant discussed each issue with the Harbor View Hills Community Association and the Newport -Mesa School District, the property owner of the school site adjoining the subject property at the bottom of a slope. Mr. Person pointed out that the applicant contacted a consulting firm regarding hydrology on the site. In reference to aesthetics, Mr. Pers6n stated that the applicant will maintain a property that will be aesthetically pleasing. In reference to view obstruction, the applicant has agreed to a deed restriction that nothing may be placed or built within the project area that would obscure a view. In reference to privacy, Mr. Pers6n explained that if an individual would go to the corner of the applicant's property and look back towards the adjoining properties there would be the same view with a slightly different angle with or without the project. He • indicated that precedence has been set within the neighborhood, -46- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES hmy''SIP113a3 ROLL CALL INDEX and he referred to two properties in the area that had constructed a deck and a terrace onto the slope. Mr. Persdn suggested that additional conditions could be imposed on the project which would mitigate further problems, i.e. implementation of the deed restriction, execute an indemnity agreement with the City which would absolve the City from any liability as a result of the approval, and a condition could state that the request would not increase the buildable area on the subject property. The project has the approval of the Architectural Committee and the Board of Directors of the Harbor View Hill Community Association. Mr. Joe LePage, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He explained that the proposal would enhance the property, and it would expand the grass area on his property. Mr. Richard Varner, 2821 Harbor View Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to support the project. The proposal would not impede his privacy, would not encroach on his view, the technical issues have been addressed properly, would increase the value of his property, and would enhance the quality of life in the area. Precedent has been set inasmuch as three walls on Harbor View Drive have been constructed in excess of 4 feet. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Varner replied that there are 12 members on the Board of Directors of the Community Association and he was unsure. if the Board voted unanimously in favor of the project. Mr. Dennis Harwood, 2729 Harbor View Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he referred to his letter to the Commission dated April 27, 1993. In reference to the hydrology issue, Mr. Harwood stated that the aforementioned consultant's letter responds to an incorrect question concerning "runoff' . His concern is creating a "catch basin" with four sides: the bottom of the slope consists of clay soil, and three sides of the slope will be walled. The problem is that if moisture is allowed to accumulate against the cut and fill line, then osmosis would work between the clay soil and the topsoil and would affect the stability downhill. 47 COMMISSIONERS LG�'P d�0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav F. lm- ROLL CALL INDEX The project would create a "catch basin" and the concern is the collection of water. Mr. Bill Ginter, 2807 Ebbtide Road, appeared before the Planning. Commission as President of the Harbor View Hills Community Association wherein he pointed out that the Board of Directors consists of seven Board members. The Board voted unanimously to approve the subject request. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Ginter replied that each proposed project is reviewed on an individual basis. The CC&R's are the architectural guidelines and the applicants have to meet the required conditions; however, the Association would be concerned if views would be affected by a proposed project. Mr. Harwood reappeared before the Planning Commission to address his concern regarding precedence. The proposed project started as an extension of the existing slope approximately three years ago, that included grading and landscaping. The original Modification proposal dated October 27, 1992, contained setbacks on each side; however, the subject proposal requests no setbacks, and he questioned how walls could be maintained with zero setbacks on each side. He stated that several years ago, he suggested that a streetwide analysis be considered and a study be performed on the lots on the southerly side of Harbor View Drive that would address the effective line to preserve views, privacy, to avoid the slippage problem, and how does the hydrology problem get worked out. If the study could provide positive results of the foregoing issues, then he would recommend a similar project for all of the lots on Harbor View Drive. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Harwood stated that when Mr. LePage contacted him three years ago regarding the project, he suggested that a study be done on the street to determine the impact on each resident and each house on the street. He explained that if one lot in the block is allowed to be extended forward and the adjoining neighbor does not, then it could have an . adverse affect on the privacy of the adjoining neighbor. The -48- COMMISSIONERS a o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES burn., f 1 OOZ ROLL CALL INDEX adjacent neighbors to the subject property have indicated that they would consider a similar project, and the original application was submitted three years ago by the applicant and his two neighbors to seek a similar form of extension. Mr. Harwood stated that his position was that if several projects were going to be extended, then a study should he done to consider the impact on the neighborhood. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Harwood explained that the issue is not drainage, but it is that the residents permit the water to sit or drain on the lots and the water falls into the cut and fill line, and when the moisture accumulates against the cut and fill line, there is a stability problem on the slope. Mr. Harwood replied that he is also concerned with precedence. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Webb explained that a geo- technical review considers the soils and the ability to accept water and the flow of water through the soil. Hydrology normally means water falling on the surface, and how it runs off. Geo- technical review of a wall could be designed where it could restrict the water from getting into the slope. When the Grading Engineer approves a grading plan and wall design, he would require that a geo - technical consultant provide a report that would evaluate the fill proposal and recommended drainage to satisfy his concerns. Ms. Margaret Cunningham, 2915 Harbor View Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the project She explained that the subject property is in the middle of 13 homes, and each structure is located on the same slope above the Harbor View Elementary School. Of the 13 homeowners, 7 homeowners have opposed the subject project. There is no precedent of a retaining wall of a similar size in the area, and the wall that is pictured in the staff report submitted by the applicant is not located in the Harbor View Hills area but is located in the neighboring area of Broadmoor. The wall is half the size of the • proposed wall, and the foregoing walls that the applicant has -49- COMMISSIONERS �t Q�Of 00�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 15M*Y1E1ltl ROLL CALL L INDEX addressed are 4 or 5 feet high, and the extensions of the slope at the top are 4 or 5 feet, and not 19 feet as proposed by the applicant. She is concerned about the impact of the project on the area, and the appearance of the wall. The residents are concerned that the 13 foot high wall would not be aesthetically pleasing and would negatively impact the appearance of the area. She referred to the applicant's property, and in comparison with her home which is the same model as the applicant's, she pointed out that her property maintains 13 to 14 feet of yard area before the slope begins; however, the applicant's home is closer to the slope inasmuch as he extended his home closer to the slope after he purchased the property. Ms. Nancy Wiese, 2807 Harbor View Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that the proposal would improve the property, and there would not be a negative impact on their view . or privacy. She expressed confidence that a consultant would be able to judge if the slope is stable. Ms. Belle Chase Lee, 2735 Harbor View Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to object to the proposal. If the applicant receives approval of the project, the adjoining neighbors of the applicant will also submit their plans, and the character of the slope would be lost. She has been a resident of Harbor View Drive for 31 years, and she addressed the number of residents residing on Harbor View Drive that object to the proposal. She stated that previous families did not need to extend their setback areas to raise their children, and the proposal would set a precedent that is going to destroy the character of the hill. She stated that she has enjoyed looking over the slope to the adjoining land below which makes Harbor View Drive unique. Ms. Lee submitted a letter signed by Yashuhiko and Mari Isobe, 2907 Harbor View Drive, expressing their opposition to the project. Mr. Persdn reappeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the applicant would not develop an unstable property inasmuch as the property that would sustain the most damage • would be his own, and he expressed his confidence in the City -50- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6_ t 993 ROLL CALL INDEX Grading Engineer. The project stands on its own merits as indicated by the President of the Homeowner's Association. Also, he explained that the proposed retaining wall will be landscaped. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Webb replied that the Grading Engineer will require a soils report from the applicant's engineer. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Person opined that the applicant would probably enter into some type of an agreement with the adjacent neighbors so as to construct the retaining wall to the side property lines. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that if the adjoining neighbors also constructed similar retaining walls, there would be abutting walls. Mr. Person further replied that the Newport -Mesa . School District has indicated that they do not support the project; however, they have not stated that they are in opposition to the project. Mr. Person explained the scenario that has taken place from the time the applicant submitted the original Modification in September, 1992, to the present. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the original Modification request in October, 1992, included more side yard setbacks, and the Modifications Committee continued this matter to obtain some policies from the Community Association regarding the location of this type of retaining wall on sloping lots in the area. The Committee was of the opinion that the proposed retaining walls would be redesigned with more setbacks from property lines than what was originally proposed to be consistent with other decks that the Modifications Committee has approved in the past, i.e. decks in the middle of a lot so the privacy question would not be involved. When the revised plan came back to the Modifications Committee, they did not expect to see the revisions that were proposed. Mr. Person explained that the applicant determined that the most rational way to get full utilization of his property was to propose the project as it has been submitted to the Planning Commission. One concern is that aesthetically, setbacks may pose a problem and if the adjacent property owners would request . similar proposals it would create an inlet between the property -51- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX lines and an unattractive nuisance between retaining walls on adjoining properties. Commissioner Gifford commented that an area between a. property line and a setback could be landscaped. Chairman Edwards addressed Mr. Persdn's aforementioned comments regarding deed restrictions which would not only restrict lawn furniture on the extended patio area, but would not allow development on the extension of the pad to allow an increase of buildable space. Mr. Person concurred. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff would be opposed to placing a condition on the approval of the project that would require the City to enforce the location of patio furniture. Mr. Person stated that the condition would be enforced by the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Laycock pointed out that there is a 20 foot front yard setback in the subject patio • area designated on the Districting Map, so the buildable area of the lot cannot change. Chairman Edwards addressed the foregoing amended Condition No. 5, Exhibit 'W', and he asked if the condition requires that the Grading Engineer require and obtain a soils report. Mr. Webb stated that the condition relates to a surface runoff. When the grading engineer reviews the design of the retaining wall, he would require a soils report to determine the foundation's stability at the foot of the wall. He suggested that a condition could be added stating that a geo- technical report be prepared as apart of the design of the retaining wale Mr. Person concurred with the suggested condition. Commissioner Gifford asked if the project would create additional space so the present house could be extended into the proposed patio area. Mr. Laycock replied to the negative. Commissioner Pomeroy compared the subject proposal with other properties in the Association's jurisdiction. He said that the Architectural Committee is very thorough in reviewing the • CC &R's and architectural guidelines, and he was certain that the -52- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES IurMIMCihl ROLL CALL INDEX members would not take the application lightly in making their recommendation for approval. There being no others desiring to appear and be beard, the public. hearing was closed at this time. notion * Commissioner Glover made a motion to approve Modification No. 4056 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including modified Condition No. 5 and added Condition No. 6 stating That a geo- technical report be prepared which will evaluate the slope's stability and retaining wall foundations and the project will be constructed in accordance with the findings of the geo- technical and /or soils report. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, W. Flory explained that the City does not accept indemnity . agreements inasmuch as they are difficult to enforce. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that he has thoroughly reviewed the proposal, and he has considered the approval of the Homeowner's Association He is a strong advocate of personal property rights and he is satisfied that privacy issues are probably not invaded. The hydrology and geo - technical issues can be worked out; however, he expressed concern regarding the precedence. The primary issue is an 11 foot high retaining wall. He reluctantly supported the request. Commissioner Merrill stated that the requested wall would be constructed on a slope that does not affect anyone and the wall does not face a street. He presented reasons why he thought the property was built out as it presently exists. Commissioner Gifford stated that it is persuasive that the Architectural Committee and the Harbor View Hills Community Association have approved the application; however, she addressed her concerns regarding the screening of the wall from the adjoining properties. She also based her support of the application by referring to the aforementioned modifications to Exhibit "A" as . suggested by Mr. Webb. -53- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mnv h_ 1993 ROLL CALL WDEX 811 Ayes Motion was voted on to approve Modification No. 4056, including modified Condition No. 5 and added Condition No. 6. MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed construction will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use. 2. That the proposed development will not affect views from adjoining residential properties. 3. That the proposed encroachment is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of • the zoning requirements for this district. 4. That the establishment or maintenance of the property or proposed construction will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the construction in the front yard setback is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved perspective plan and section. 2. That the proposed guard rail shall be of an open nature or made of transparent materials and that no planting shall be grown upon said railing within the required 20 foot front yard setback. -54- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6- 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the overall height of the proposed construction shall not exceed 13 feet from the natural grade. 4. That the front of the retaining wall shall be appropriately landscaped with vines so as to partially screen the wall from the adjoining school property. 5. That the proposed encroachment shall be designed to drain to Harbor View Drive, unless the Newport -Mesa School District approves a drainage easement over its property, or another design is approved by the City Grading Engineer. 6. That a geo- tecbnical report be prepared which will evaluate the slope's stability and retaining wall foundations and the project shall be constructed in accordance with the findings of the geo - technical and /or soils report. Use Permit No. 3495 (Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to permit the establishment of a passive recreational park UP3495 conga to 5/20/93 on property located in the P -C District where a Planned Community Development Plan has not been adopted. LOCATION: A portion of Block 97, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 20 El Capitan Drive, on the easterly side of El Capitan Drive, southerly of the San Joaquin Reservoir, in the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: EPT Landscape Architecture, San Juan Capistrano OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach -55- C0AUMSSIONER3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 .7 ROLL CALL INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 20,1993, to allow the applicant additional time to incorporate recommendations from the immediately affected residential homeowners. otion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3495 yes * * to the May 20, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION bsent * CARRIED. x x x Use Permit No. 3496 (Public Hearing) Item No Request to permit the establishment of a take -out restaurant which UP3496 specializes in the sale of brewed coffee, pastries and coffee accessories on property located in the RSC -H District. The Approve proposal also includes the waiver of a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 35 -1 (Resubdivision No. 284), located at 1628 San Miguel Drive, on the northeasterly comer of San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road, in the Harbor View Commercial Center. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: Starbucks Coffee, Seattle, Washington OWNER: Irvine Retail Properties, Irvine The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Thomas Speroni, Project Manager for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". -56- .7 COBDUSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1A,101111Y�.� May 6 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by the Commission regarding the establishment's proposed hours of operation, the maintenance of the common area, and the pastries served at the take -out restaurant, Mr. Speroni stated that the facility intends to close. when the shopping center closes, and there is no food preparation on the premises. Mr. Dan Bergener, Carlson Company, property manager of the shopping center, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the management company provides the maintenance of the common area. He further stated that no stores in the shopping center are open until midnight. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3496 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Merrill requested to amend Condition No. 14, Exhibit "A ", stating that the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Speroni requested that the establishment be allowed the same operating hours as the other businesses in the shopping center. Substitute motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3496 Substitut Motion subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", with the exception that Condition No. 14 be amended to state that the hours of operation shall be between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and to 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Commissioner Glover stated that she would support the substitute motion, and she did not accept the suggestion that the facility could not be open on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights until 12:00 midnight. Mr. Speroni stated that the applicant would prefer to have the . option to remain open until 12:00 midnight. -57- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH hL11►1111l Mav fi- 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Gifford commented that the market place would limit the hours of operation. The substitute motion was amended to modify Condition No. 14. All Ayes to state that the hours of operation shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and until 12:00 midnight on Friday and Saturday. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed take -out restaurant is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. . 3. That the proposed take -out restaurant use can be adequately served by existing on -site parking. 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 5. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to parking lot illumination, walls, landscaping, and a portion of the required parking (28 spaces) will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties given the developed characteristics of the existing facility. 6. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3496 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. -58- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6- 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans,. except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of the Sign Code. 3. That the development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, and a portion of the required parking (28 spaces) shall be waived. 4. That a washout area for refuse containers 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 Department and the Public Works Department. 5. That 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 Department. 6. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 7. That dancing or live entertainment shall not be permitted in conjunction with the restaurant facility unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission, 8. That no outdoor sound system shall be utilized on -site, and that any recorded music shall be confined to the interior of the building. -59- COMMISSIONERS ON VNI, RMAA- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Ma Y 6 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 9. That all restaurant employees shall be required to park on- site at all times during the time which the restaurant is operating. 10. That no temporary "sandwich" signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the restaurant facility. 11. That all trash areas and mechanical equipment shall be shielded or screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 12. That 7 parldng spaces shall be provided on -site to serve the proposed facility. 13. That the service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 14. That the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 6:00 am. and 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight Friday and Saturday, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 15. That the outdoor dining area (immediately adjacent to the subject facility) shall not be used exclusively by the subject restaurant and shall be available for use by the general public and shall be kept in a clean and orderly manner by the applicant or his successors. Also, that a minimum 10 foot wide pedestrian passageway be maintained between the proposed outdoor dining area and any planters or other raised obstructions. 16. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, -60- COhDaSt3IONERs •�A��O�l�'P d �OS�O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 17. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 1711 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted UP1 n 1A the expansion of an existing restaurant now known as the Warehouse Restaurant which included on -sale alcoholic beverages, Approved dancing, live entertainment and billiards on property located in the RSC -H District. The proposal involves a request to change the . operational characteristics of the restaurant so as to allow the establishment of a second dancing and live entertainment area within the restaurant which will be located within the existing ground floor banquet area of the restaurant. Said area will be used for dancing and live entertainment from 10:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. daily. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 63 -11 (Resubdivision No. 447) located at 3450 Via Oporto, on the northeasterly side of Via Oporto, easterly of Central Avenue, in Lido Marina Village. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: The Warehouse Restaurant, San Clemente OWNER: Lido Marina Village, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Lee Riley appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Riley concurred with the findings and . conditions in Exhibit 'W'. -61- COMMISSIONERS i I \V-A0\§NR*\\0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11T51101180 9 May 6 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Ayes Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1711 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, replied that it was staffs opinion that the subject request would not be an intensification of use. All Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Findings 1. The proposed changes in the operational characteristics of • the restaurant is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the proposed addition of dancing and related live entertainment on the ground floor of the restaurant after 10:30 p.m. can be adequately served by existing available parking. 4. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping and building setbacks will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties given the developed characteristics of the existing facility. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1711 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property -62- CORDUSSIONERS 410PPMR, k\\&O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plans. 2. That all previously applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1711, and Use Permit No. 1711 (Amended) as approved by the Planning Commission on July 17, 1975, May 9, 1991 and February 20, 1992, shall be maintained. 3. That the sound from the ground floor live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the structure; and . further that all windows and doors within the restaurant shall be closed when said activity is conducted on the site. 4. The maximum permitted occupancy for specific portions within the restaurant shall be established in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Fire Code. 5. That the applicant shall obtain a new occupancy permit for the ground floor dancing and live entertainment area as well as for the second floor bar, dancing and live entertainment and pool table uses. 6 That the dancing and related live entertainment on both the first and second floor shall be limited to the hours between 10:30 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. daily. 7. That no outdoor loudspeakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 8. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application. • -63- COMIIQISSIONERS • PO �, \0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 11MVIMP" ROLL CALL INDEX 9. That restaurant development standards pertaining to walls, landscaping, and building setbacks shall be waived. 10. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 11. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3120 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.' Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3120A permitted the reconstruction and expansion of the Balboa Fun Approved Zone, located on property in the RSC -R District. The proposed amendment involves a request to expand a previously approved proposal to establish an additional arcade use within the Fun Zone project. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 208/4 -6 (Resubdivision No. 724), located at 600 Edgewater Place on property bounded by Edgewater Place, Washington Street, East Bay Avenue, and Palm Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: RSC -R APPLICANT: Commercial Center Management, Inc., Santa • Ana -64- COIV MSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 6. 1993 [LOLL CALL INDEX OWNER: Clayton R Cook, Burbank The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Sandra Quilty appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and she concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3120 All ayes (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. Findings: . 1. That the expanded arcade use is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have a significant environmental impact. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3120 (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. Conditions: 1. That expansion of the proposed arcade shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan. 2. That the employees shall park on -site. -65- i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IAli►LINO Mnv 6. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the hours of operation of the arcade shall be limited between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, Sunday through Thursday, and from 9:00 am. to 2:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday and recognized holidays. 4. That any signs shall be consistent with the sign program approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with Exception Permit No. 18. 5. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the utilization of the expanded area for arcade purposes. 6. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3120 shall be fulfilled. . 7. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 8. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ! f t Use Permit No 3122 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3122A permitted the construction of the Edgewater Place complex Cont ' a including a full service restaurant and bar on the second and third to floors with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment; a 5/20/93 take -out restaurant and a variety of retail uses on the ground floor; and the Edgewater Place parking structure. The proposed -66- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i IffTillbt�.. May 6, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX amendment includes: a request to permit the construction of a vehicle ramp from the ground floor of the parking structure to the basement; a re- configuring of the number and location of parking spaces within the parking structure; the conversion of the third . floor restaurant /bar to office use; and the reduction of the off - street parking requirement for the remaining second floor restaurant to one parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public area." LOCATION: Lots 1 -3, 7 -12, an unnumbered lot, all in Block 3 of the Balboa Bayside Tract; and Lots 22 and 23, Block A of the Bayside Tract, located at 309 Palm Street, on the northerly side of East Bay Avenue, between Palm Street and Adams Street, in Central . Balboa. An exception to the Sign Code is also requested inasmuch as two direction signs to the parking structure exceed the permitted 6 sq. ft. area, and one of the signs contains the name of the Newport Landing Restaurant. ZONE: RSC -R APPLICANT: BA Properties, Los Angeles OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the May 20, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3122 Ayes * * * * * * (Amended) to the May 20, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. Absent * MOTION CARRIED. i i Y -67- COBOUSSIONERS . y�'0 +RR iO% 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6 1993 ii ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3076 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3076A permitted the establishment of the Newport Landing Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages, live entertainment and off -site Cont'd to parking on property located in the RSC -R District. The proposed 5/20/93 amendment includes: a request to establish a new off - street parking requirement for the restaurant based on additional off -site parking spaces being provided by the owners of the Edgewater Place Development; the removal of the previously approved handicapped parking spaces from the Newport Landing Restaurant site; and the approval of an amended Off -site Parking Agreement consistent with the revised parking figures. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 196 -38 (Resubdivision No. 765), located at 503 Edgewater Place, on the southeasterly corner of Edgewater Place and Adams Street, in Central Balboa. ZONE: RSC -R APPLICANT: Landing Associates, Irvine OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the May 20, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3076 Ayes * * * * * k (Amended) to the May 20, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. Absent * MOTION CARRIED. -68- ii •��o� i ��' � o, y� o s o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6. 1993 .12 ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3491 (Continued Public Hearing) item No Request to permit a recreational establishment with approximately UP3491 30 pool tables as well as incidental dining and the service of on- Cont I d sale alcoholic beverages, including a full service bar on property to located in the RSC -H District. The proposal also includes a 6/10/93 request to approve an off -site parking arrangement for a portion of the required off - street parking and the approval of a full time valet parking service. The request to establish the proposed billiard center also represents a conversion of a portion of the building from a Base FAR use to a Reduced FAR which also requires the approval of a Use Permit. LOCATION: Lots 8 through 12 and portions of Lots 7 and 13, Tract No. 622, located at 3491 Via Lido, on the northeasterly side of Via Lido, . between Via Oporto and Via Malaga, in the Lido Marina Village area. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: Yros Marderos, Hollywood OWNER: Swiss Group Property Inc., Irvine James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the June 10, 1993, Planning Commission meeting so as to provide additional, time to revise the plans. Kotion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3491 Ayes * * * * * * to the June 10, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 12:45 a.m. Adjourn -69- .12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 6 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX s s s HARRY MERRILL, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION . -70-