Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/1998•Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 7, 1998 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. • 0 ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Ridgeway, Selich, Kranzley, Gifford, Adams and Ashley - Chairperson Kranzley was excused and Commissioner Gifford arrived late STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of April 23,1998: Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway and voted on to approve, as written, the April 23, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes and the correction to March 19th minutes regarding Use Permit No. 3622, Billo's Cafe Findings and Conditions. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Selich, Adams and Ashley Noes: None Absent: Kranzley, Gifford Abstain: None Public Comments none Postina of the Aaenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, May 1, 1998 outside of City Hall. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 Feldman Residence, 3709 Ocean Blvd. Richard Natland, applicant • Variance No. 1220 Variance request to permit additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling using the established 67.5 feet at Mean Sea Level, approved by the Planning Commission on April 24, 1980. The specific request is an expansion that is seaward of the property and is approximately 11 feet 6 inches beyond the previous approval by the Planning Commission. A Variance is required to exceed the height limit, due to the unusual topographyof the site. Mrs. Genia Garcia, Associate Planner, noted that the property was built in 1959 and in 1980 the Planning Commissioner approved the establishment of grade at 67.5 feet at mean sea level over the existing sewer line. At that time a flow line test established that the natural grade on the property was approximately three feet below the 67.5. In 1997, the applicant submitted plans for an approval in concept. At that time staff made the determination that the previously approved establishment of grade could be applied to the proposed addition. In January 1998, the owners applied for a building permit. Upon a closer review of the scope of • work, it was determined by the Planning Director that the previous establishment of grade would not be applicable to this project and that the Planning Commissioner should review this project. She ended noting the following: The remodel will include: • expansion of a four level single family dwelling • extension seaward of approximately 11.5 feet • deck extensions on three levels • height of top rail at top level is no higher than 24 feet (using the reference point of 67.5 ft) • new decorative roof entry over the front door on the Ocean Boulevard side of the property (10 '/2 inches above the top of curb elevation) • additions and extensions of the buildings are behind the silhouette of the building and seaward of the property Commissioner Selich affirmed that the existing profile that is seen from the street remains the same in terms of the maximum height. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if there was an existing Encroachment Permit with this property to which he was answered, yes, and that the applicant is working with the Public Works Department. Mrs. Garcia added that any planting along Ocean Boulevard should not • exceed the curb height. The applicant has been required to trim the INDEX Rem No. 1 Variance No. 1220 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 current landscape in accordance with the Public Works Encroachment Permit. She also noted that the property extensions will not interfere with the views of adjacent lots as this lot is set further back on the slope than the adjacent properties. Public Comment was opened. Richard Natland, architect, presented photos of the property taken from ocean side and street side. In response to Commission inquiry, stated that he understands and agrees to the findings and conditions of Variance No. 1220. Gary Feldman, owner of 3709 Ocean Boulevard addressed the Encroachment Permit issue raised earlier. He noted that he works with the city forester who approves the trimming that is done on a regular basis at least once a year. Commissioner Selich asked staff, in the terms of landscaping, is it required to meet the some height limit as the zoning on the property? Ms. Temple answered that the City Zoning Code does not address heights is of landscaping. However, the Public Works Department, when they are dealing with landscape in public right -of -way, will impose the Ocean Boulevard height limit when feasible. Mr. Phil Sansone, President of the Corona del Mar Residents Association, noted his concern with the shrubbery in the encroached areas along Ocean Boulevard from Poinsettia to the entrance to the Little Corona. He requested that the Commission request that the Public Works Department be required, when re- issuing the encroachment permit for this property, to include shrubbery height limits. He then proceeded to discuss the work of the city forester and administration citations with escalating fines. Mr. Feldman, at Commission inquiry, noted that his landscaping is comparable to everyone else's on the block and that he is interested only in a barrier between the street and his home and not in high growing trees. Public Comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to approve Variance No. 1220 noting that the Encroachment Permit addresses the landscaping consistencywith the other Encroachment Permits that exist. Without objection and by show of hands, Motion Passed. • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 Findings: That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program and a single family dwelling is a permitted use within the "Single Family Residential' land use designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 3. That the following exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the land and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, building and /or uses in the same District: • The topography of the lot inhibits the property owner from designing an addition that meets the height requirement because the slope of the lot is steep. • • The lot is constrained by the eroded slope area under the existing decks which makes the determination of natural grade difficult. • The lot is constrained by a shorter depth due to the steep slope and coastal cliff at the water side which restricts the siting options of the structure on the lot. 4. That the approval of Variance No. 1220 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant since the proposed project is generally proportional or smaller in size, bulk and height than other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application of the height requirements would result in a redesign of a large portion of the dwelling to comply with the height limit. 5. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district since there are no other lots that have incurred a major sewer line leak. In addition, the granting of the variance will allow additions to the dwelling that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, comparable in size and height. 6. That the granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed • the permitted height limit will not be detrimental to the health, INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood because the proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the property and enhance the overall neighborhood because the additions are hidden from view from Ocean Blvd., and the front entry roof is below the height of the existing roof. 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 since conditions have been included in regards to development within the public right -of -way. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan,. floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. • 2. That an Encroachment Agreement shall be obtained through the Public Works Department for the existing and proposed private encroachments (walls, stairs, electrical, planters, etc.) located within the public right -of -way on Ocean Blvd. The Encroachment Agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of building or grading permits for the proposed building alterations. Standard City Requirements: 3. That all public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. 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 accordancewith state and local requirements. 5. That overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonableor impractical. 6. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to • issuance of any building permits. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this variance upon a determination that this variance, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. That this variance 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. SUBJECT: JP's of Newport Beach (Erik Rameson, applicant) 3450 Via Oporto • Use Permit No. 3626 Request to allow the re- establishment of the existing Warehouse Restaurant which included on -sale alcoholic beverages, dancing and live entertainment as JP's of Newport Beach, a new full service restaurant and entertainment facility. The application includes alcoholic beverage service, outdoor patio dining, both indoor and outdoor live musical entertainment and indoor dancing. The application also includes a request to permit a variety of interactive and skill games, the use of valet parking service and to waive a portion of the required parking. Ms. Temple noted that this application involves a re- configuration of an existing restaurant formerly known as the 'Warehouse' into a new operation which includes a different operational characteristic including interactive video games. Staff has taken the position, due to the moveable nature of the games involved and the amount of floor area occupied, that the analysis should be based upon a regular restaurant net public area analysis for the game area. If Commission supports the application on that basis, then a waiver of 119 required parking spaces for the operation is required. The Warehouse Restaurant as it is today, under the one parking space for every 40 feet of net public area would require a waiver of 90 spaces. Staff has looked at an alternative parking analysis for this project as a result of conversations with Commission that would be based upon: • 2 "d floor includes a bar /lounge /dance area, but is dominated by the video floor area with a low seating saturation • video game area has a much lower parking requirement than conventional restaurant seating (1/10 of requirement) • video game area would not likely be occupied for conventional restaurant seating although some beverages and light food items can be served in that area • by using the alternative parking approach, the parking requirement INDEX Item No. 2 Use Permit No. 3626 Continued to 5/21/98 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 would be 216 spaces resulting in a waiver of 41 parking spaces A lower parking waiver would preclude the eventual conversion of the new arcade area to standard restaurant service if the business were to change hands, and, would require an amendment to the use permit with an additional discretionary waiver of the parking. The City would be in a stronger position were other changes to occur over time to this particular business. Continuing, she stated this is an alternative for Commission to consider. In addition, one of the conditions of approval would be to require all the customers be allowed to park or to be served by valet parking at no charge. There may be some other arrangements or agreements that the City is not a party to that may indicate that some patrons may be required to pay for the valet service. If the alternative approach is considered, then condition number 2 would need to be changed to a waiver of 41 parking spaces instead of 119 parking spaces. Additionally, the property owner does control a parking lot on 32nd Street to help support the overall parking requirement for Lido Marina Village and suggested an alteration to condition number 16 that would require that all employees park in the parking structure or on the 32nd Street lot. Commissioner Fuller asked about and was answered: • notified property owners across the channel - location relative to residential uses would not be affected in this case, therefore, they were not notified • any studies done on parking as expressed by the Via Lido- the owner of the Via Lido Plaza has provided a number of documents over the years both of complaint and documentation of 'poached' parking between the two properties Ms. Temple noted that better utilization of the on -site parking resources will assist the situation. The change of operational characteristics with a high level of floor area occupied by non - conventional restaurant service should lower the overall parking demand from this particular business. Currently the property owner polices people from parking in his lot. It is the City's hope to involve all of the property owners in a study of this area for some type of a comprehensive parking study. Mr. Myers added that is part of the reason for the requirement of the use of valet parking, to get the full utilization of the parking structure. Based on staff's observations, the parking structure use during the week was minimal and on the weekends and at night, was negligible. The use permit for the 'Thunderbird' has been revoked and it would require any new applicants to come back to the Commission. If that site were put to some use, it would require additional parking somewhere. The parking structure that is there, includes usage of that same building since there are 395 spaces and if used to the maximum potential would provide an adequate . amount of parking. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 Ms. Temple stated that the City's Zoning Code was changed from parking based on number of seats to parking based on net public area because it is much easier to enforce and the formulas were devised using a standard restaurant seating saturation in order to devise the net public area. The area on the second floor that is really for beverage service and, dancing have been left calculated at the conventional restaurant rate. It is only the gaming area that staff is suggesting using the alternate ratio. Comparisons of 1 parking space for every three seats - now 1 parking space for every fifteen square feet per seat, then the ratio would be I space for every 45 square feet. Commission asked: 1) under existing Code, is there a difference in the parking requirement between a bar and a restaurant 2) staff report indicates that the existing use permit is a re- establishment, is the existing use permit still operational and valid 3) whatever form this current application was either approved or denied the applicant would still be able to go back and establish their use within the parameters of the Warehouse use permit which would include a waiver, by today's standards, of 91 parking spaces 4) when the original use permit was approved under the old parking • standard of 1 per every 3 seats, were there any waivers granted 5) when the 'Thunderbird' was in operation, how many parking spaces were they required to provide in the parking structure 6) with 175 spaces at night for Warehouse, the remaining 200 spaces were to be used for the Thunderbird and remaining retail uses 7) under the existing use permit of the Warehouse, how many seats are allowed 8) busing or transportation to the 32nd Street parking lot where the unused bank kiosk is located 9) Via Oporto private or public street 10) is there an easement that Lido Marina Village maintains 11) going back to the existing use permit in this application, the difference between the two applications is: • the net public area is being increased by 1141 square feet • the applicant is putting in video arcade games • all other things the applicant is requesting are permitted under the existing use permit 12) the conditions that speakers located in the outdoor dining area shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the NBMC - is this the Noise Ordinance Staff answered: 1) there is not, however, the Restaurant Parking Chapter allows the Planning Commission to establish a parking requirement within the • range of 1 per 30 to 1 per 50 square feet of the net public area INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 Public Comment was opened. Mr. Jerry King, representing the applicants, distributed pictures of the interactive video games. He noted they are not the kind of equipment that is moved around and is therefore in support of what staff is supporting in the parking analysis. He has talked to the residents in the area, particularly in the Towers. There have been no complaints while the previous owners had outdoor dining, dancing or noise. In the upstairs area, there is not a lot of seating. During the prior occupations of the other business, there was a tendency to park across the street and the operators of that center have been diligent in noticing people and /or towing cars. The applicant has been asked to have a security service as part of this operation which is included in the packet. Part of the personnel represent security who patrol the floor of the restaurant and control the activity on the floor and around the outside including the patio. He supports the findings and conditions noted in the staff report and with the changes indicated this evening. Staff noted that the plans show that the number of existing seats is the •some as the proposed number of seats (524) which includes the seating in 9 '11,1.7�:� depending on the operational characteristic (separate standards could be established for a bar area use within a restaurant use) 2) yes 3) yes, that is correct 4) no, there were not - there was a limitation imposed on the seating and occupancy 5) not known 6) retail and restaurant, compared to today's parking standards, the parking structure in itself would not provide the full parking compliment for all the uses in Lido Village 7) 524 8) there is a potential for the property owner, it he chooses, to require employees of the Warehouse site to park at 32nd Street, he would be required to provide some sort of shuttle service and security for those employees 9) publicstreet 10) there is a non - standard improvement approved through an encroachment agreement and Lido Marina Village is required to maintain the brick street 11) there are some modest differences • there is a slight increase in hours of operation in the morning • staff is suggesting that the number of entertainers allowed on • the outdoor patio be limited to a maximum of two where there is currently no limit. • other than that, the operation is largely the same 12) yes, Chapter 10.26 of the NBMC is the Noise Ordinance Public Comment was opened. Mr. Jerry King, representing the applicants, distributed pictures of the interactive video games. He noted they are not the kind of equipment that is moved around and is therefore in support of what staff is supporting in the parking analysis. He has talked to the residents in the area, particularly in the Towers. There have been no complaints while the previous owners had outdoor dining, dancing or noise. In the upstairs area, there is not a lot of seating. During the prior occupations of the other business, there was a tendency to park across the street and the operators of that center have been diligent in noticing people and /or towing cars. The applicant has been asked to have a security service as part of this operation which is included in the packet. Part of the personnel represent security who patrol the floor of the restaurant and control the activity on the floor and around the outside including the patio. He supports the findings and conditions noted in the staff report and with the changes indicated this evening. Staff noted that the plans show that the number of existing seats is the •some as the proposed number of seats (524) which includes the seating in 9 '11,1.7�:� • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 the game areas. Mr. Don Gregory, 601 Lido Park Drive noted the following in opposition to this application: • to allow a uniform code of hours and noise abatement for restaurants to be established by members of the EQAC • noise consultantwill be meeting with EQAC shortly • application is really for a different type of sports bar • hours are far beyond what has been allowed • this location is very calm now • people do not eat later than 11:00 p.m. and only come to drink and hear music • parking is a concern • asked to continue this item to allow time for the EQAC to offer suggestions • wants to be fair to all the businesses and residents in the area William Bissell, 1200 Quail Street representing Lido Partners owner of the Via Lido Plaza Shopping Center spoke in opposition. The Lido Partners, merchants and tenants are surprised that Commission is even considering the waiver of 119 parking spaces or 41 spaces under the alternate plan. • Lido Partners and the merchant tenants feel they have long bom the burden of the inadequate parking at the Lido Marina Village through increased maintenance costs and security costs and loss of business. This particular project does nothing to relieve that burden but instead will compound it. Staff's report on the plan appears to be based upon an analysis that the parking structure in Lido Marina Village is under utilized. The report however, does not make an attempt to make a finding as to what is the cause of that. That is obvious, the cost of the parking structure parking when there are 300 free parking spaces just steps away. Under this particular plan this will continue. The merchants, tenants and Lido Partners are only concerned with the burden of the additional parking. We hope a resolution can be found but not at the expense of other tenants. Free parking and validation would be a step in the right direction. Commissioner Adam noted that the free parking or free valet parking would be an incentive to utilize the parking structure and thereby help to eliminate the use of the center parking. Public Comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford asked about an agreement that was under consideration and altering the conditions of parking and charges. Ms. Temple noted that some of the agreements are not completed yet, although there has been some private litigation and settlement • agreement relating to parking at the structure. Should the Commission 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 elect to approve this application with the City's condition in regards to free parking for customers of this business, it could require that the owner go back and re- negotiate some of the settlement agreements. They would be required to do so before they could implement the approval. Public Comment was re- opened. Mr. Jerry_King stated that the applicant is in agreement with validating the parking for patrons but as part of the settlement agreement which is still not signed and open, the applicant was unaware that there was a clause requiring that the Warehouse pay a portion for the valet. There is a clause that the valet has to be paid. This is an issue that will need to be addressed by the applicant. Commissioner Selich clarified that the conditions in the staff report say that the valet parking will be free, and parking in the parking structure will be free with no time limit. Mr. King agreed and stated that they have actually given the patron four hours. Commissioner Adams asked under what conditions the applicant would validate the parking? He was answered that it would be validated for four • hours with no minimum purchase requirement. Discussion continued on parking validation time limitations, signage, tenant responsibility, off-site parking for employees at 32nd Street lot or with no charge in the parking structure and a requirement of a valet parking plan from the applicant for city review. Public Comment was closed. Mr. Edmonston noted that there a number of places within the city that have valet stacking and drop off on a public street. It is preferred that it be done on site. CommissionerAdams noted the following: • this looks like a unique opportunity to solve a long standing parking problem • free parking required of a major tenant - should shed some of the parking demand into the parking structure • reducing net public restaurant area in the village - thereby reducing future uses of this permit in a more intense manner without a public hearing • no answer to the problem that Lido Partners is having that is better than this opportunity Continuing, he noted that there is not enough data to be confident that • there is enough parking in the area to be waiving anywhere from 41 to 119 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 spaces. Therefore, he recommends that a study be done encompassing the use of '/2 hour increments over Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday as well as factoring summer activity. Also, Commission needs to know what the present and future demands are with all sites being occupied. This information will allow proportional parking spaces. A continuance to do a parking study will not be enough to include what the EQAC recommendations might have. The timing will be too long for that and we have to be fair to this business although it would be nice to be able to do wait for EQAC. Mr. Edmonston noted, at Commission inquiry, that at the peak of activity the parking structure was full to the point that cars were parked in aisles and the two entities had valet service. The Lido Plaza, City Hall and surrounding streets were full when the Baccus and the Warehouse were in full operation. The uses were not operating as restaurants only. Commissioner Ridgeway supported the application recognized the need for an additional study for stated reasons. He added that the conditions as proposed, number 8 should read that the Noise Ordinance shall apply to the entire project. Motion was made by Chairperson Ridgeway to continue this item to allow a parking inventory to be done in the parking • structure, Lido Marina Village, the office building, the bank building and the 32nd Street parking. Commissioner Adams asked for a capacity study to be done to understand the current tenant situation. He asked staff if the applicant could do this study. Mr. King noted that three professional studies have been done on the parking structure over the years. Some of the areas that have been traditionally been Magic Island and the Thunderbird, have been converted to office uses. The second floor of the former night club is gone. Commissioner Adams stated that there is not enough data to approve this application and that the applicant needs to do whatever is necessary to make a case to assure that parking can be squared away in this area. If you can utilize old studies, that's fine. Commission just needs and wants this information. Commissioner Giff ord stated that there is not enough information given to the Commission. The Commission is stating that we need to know exactly what is included in Lido Marina Village, what the parking demand would be if all the parking spaces were used to the maximum parking demand use that is authorized presently under the Code and under what conditions the 32nd Street lot can be used. • Public Comment was closed. 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 Without objection and by show of hands, Motion Passed. SUBJECT: Recreation and Open Space Element (City of Newport Beach, applicant) • GPA 94 -2 (E) A comprehensive update of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. Ms. Temple noted that in the audience there were people who contributed to this plan and will be speaking: Mr. Larry Lawrence - consultant and preparer of draft element Ms. La Donna Kienitz - Director of Community Services Ms. Pat Beek - member of Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission who reviewed this element prior to its being forwarded to Planning Commission for review . Mr. Patrick Alford presented the staff report noting the following changes: /r add the provision of adequate parking to Policy 2.6 on Page 3 -6 �• add references to CIOSA section (Page 1 -7) clarifying that certain sites may be used for senior housing. • revise Service Area 9 map to show Newport Dunes as a private recreational facility and additionally noting: • comprehensive update to replace 1985 version • update of future needs and existing facility • a more effective format and organization of policies and data • Bonita Canyon Area annexation will be updated Ms. Temple, at Commission inquiry, explained that the element was drafted by the consultant and was reviewed in sub - committee of the PB & R Commission. Subsequent to the preparation of the public review draft, it was considered by the PB & R Commission at a public hearing where they approved the draft. Mrs. Wood noted that at the beginning of the process there was also a survey of the community to help establish what the needs are. Commissioner Ashley asked about the open and passive space • represented by Upper Newport Bay. 13 Item No. 3 GPA 94 -2 (E) INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 Ms. Temple answered that it was not calculated as a recreation facility such as a park, it is shown as an ecological preserve in the maps. The acreages are calculated on zoned land and the bay is water area which does not carry land use or zoning designations. Most of the beaches are zoned OS. The property lines in the bay are established by either mean high tide or by official adjudication in the Orange County Superior Court. Commissioner Fuller confirmed that table 2 -1 on page 2 -3, does not include Bonita Canyon annexation or the proposed annexation of Newport Coast. Mr. Larry Lawrence, Lawrence Associates discussed the table that was being requested. He stated that the information was not included in the park figures at the time of review. If both the areas are increased, it will reduce the deficit. Referencing the same table, information was given on the following: • West Newport- Cal Trans propertyon Superior and PCH is not included and is designated in the General Plan as multi - family, residential 1111-13 • acres) and parkland credits were approved to accrue to an off -site development if the residential units allocated to a site be transferred off -site. • Includes beach area where active recreation takes place - i.e., typically within 100 feet of the water. In addition, there are 174 acres of passive beach open space and 136 acres in the Upper Bay ecological reserve. • Includes school recreation acreage (68.5) - not available to average residents during the day and sometimes not at night • How to determine which policies are new compared to those in the old element - this is a complete re- write, there was no attempt to change the overall philosophy in terms of park and recreation uses Ms. LaDonna Kienitz introduced the Chairman of the Open Space Committee. Ms. Beek noted the following: • this project was started a little over a year ago • includes clarification of what exists • identified parcels throughout the City • surveys in the City to identify needs • open hearing meetings throughout the process • the annexation was not included during the process Ms. Temple noted that the information on the annexation has been • drafted and is ready to be incorporated into the element prior to Council 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 review. Commissioner Fuller noted that a useful item in looking at the draft element would have been some type of bullet point system outlining the differences between the existing plan and this draft plan. Public Comment was opened. Tom Hyans, President of Central Newport Beach Association commented on page 27 noting: • park and library property park at Island Avenue and East Bay Avenue have been omitted from the map • neighborhood park on the north side of the library meets the definition of park and should be included • public beach at Island and Alvarado has been omitted • most street end beaches have been omitted Continuing, he noted that the ocean beaches need to be preserved and should not be used to store items such as cars, trucks, trailers, etc. Newport's beaches all need to be preserved and not altered. This message needs to be included in the document. • Ms Temple noted that every street end beach was not noted due to the size of the graphics. Existing policies and ordinances address the utilization of the street end areas. While certain of the tables referenced do not include the annexation areas of Bonita Canyon and Newport Coast, the service area maps in the policy section include both areas as approved through prior action. Staff will update some of the charts and tables in the Element now that the annexation has been approved before the Element is presented to City Council. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Adams suggested that on page 3-6 under the policy development design guidelines to include in item E, location and design. A lot of the new facilities are designated as approximate location, siting of a park is as important as the design with regards to sensitivity to adjacent land uses. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend to the City Council approval of GPA 94 -2 (E) with the following additions: • Bonita Canyon annexation updates • Update all charts and tables • add the provision of adequate parking to Policy 2.6 on Page 3 -6 • add references to CIOSA section (Page 1 -7) clarifying that certain sites may be used for senior housing. . • Look into the addition of the park as noted by Mr. Hyans and include 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 if necessary • Include the term location on page 3-6 • Include a designation on the maps that show the Ecological Reserve and Lower Bay as passive open space Commission thanked the people and staff who worked on this Element complimenting them on the good job that was done. Without objection and by show of hands, Motion Passed. s *s ADDITIONAL BUSINESS- 0.) City Council Follow -up -.Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - Mrs. Wood reported that at the last Council Meeting the Via Lido Project received final approval, introduced the General Plan and Zoning Amendment for Bay Shores Inn, and the Aubergine Restaurant off - site parking issue has been resolved. b.) Oral report by the Planning Director regarding the approval of • Outdoor Dining Permits, Planning Director's Use Permits, Modification Permits and Temporary Use Permits - Outdoor Dining Permits were issued to 504 South Bay Front, Suite 102 and 251 East Coast Highway; Lot Line Adjustment was issued for 1000 Bayside Drive; Modification Permits were issued for 1937 Port Cardigan, 506 Catalina Drive 2309 Santiago Drive, 2205 Channel Road and 800 Avocado Avenue. C.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee- none d.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. Pending matters: none e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report- none f.) Requests for excused absences- Commissioners Selich and Ashley excused from meeting on May 21st. » «s • ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 p.m. 16 Additional Business INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1998 THOMAS ASHLEY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION E 0 17 INDEX