The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/23/1994COMMISSIONERS . . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: MINUTES June zs, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. (Commissioner Edwards and Commissioner Pomeroy arrived at 7:35 p.m.) EX -OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Rich Edmonton, City Traffic Engineer Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Dee Edwards, Secretary # ## Minutes of June 9. 1994 Minutes c 6 -9 -94 Chairman Merrill requested that page 1.8 of the Minutes be corrected to June 23, 1994. Motion was made and voted on to approve the June 9, 1994, Motion * * * * * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Ayes Absent # ## Public Comments: Public Comments Commissioner DiSano commended retiring Chairman Merrill of his eight years of service as a Planning Commissioner, and as Chairman of the Planning Commission this past year. Chairman Merrill thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work. # ## i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH :e June 23 1994 [LOLL CALL IlVDEX _..._ Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 17, 1994, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuance: equest or Director Hewicker indicated that the applicant requested that Item ontinuan No. 6, General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(A), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 34, and Amendment No. 805 regarding the Granville Apartment located at 1001 -1147 Granville Drive be continued to the July 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant additional time to have further discussions with *on Ayes * * existing tenants within the Granville Apartments. Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 6 to the July. 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Absent a s s Use Permit No. 3120 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item N0.1 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which ii 2oA permitted the reconstruction and expansion of the Balboa Fun Zone, located on property located in the RSC -R District. The Approved proposed amendment involves a request to convert a portion of the facility currently used for arcade purposes into space for an additional amusement ride. 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. :e COMOSSIONERS I %\�4 &A4Lilto CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23 1994 ZOLL CALL INDEX ZONE: RSC -R APPLICANT: Charles Tunstall, Balboa OWNER: Rio Grande Properties, Irving, Texas James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the number of amendments to the use permit that have been requested regarding the Fun Zone since the original use permit was approved and the property was redeveloped, and the mix of the uses that have changed. When the use permit was originally approved the Planning Commission set a square footage limitation of each of the uses, i.e. food /specialty food, arcade, and amusement ride uses. He suggested that the Planning Commission consider a condition stating that a use be limited to no more than 50 percent of the permitted gross floor area of the site exclusive of covered parking, and if the use would exceed the 50 percent limitation that the applicant would be required to amend the use permit. The condition would allow the applicant to inter - change the various types of activities that are permitted on the property. Commissioner Glover concurred with the suggested condition; however, she suggested that the 50 percent be changed to 35 percent or 40 percent based on her concern that 50 percent of the gross floor area for arcades may not be a satisfactory balance. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Charles Tunstall, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He indicated that he would agree to change the percentage of uses, and he pointed out that the amusement rides are near 50 percent. The subject request is to add a "kiddy" teacup ride, and he addressed the amusement rides currently on site. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Tunstall replied that the location of the proposed teacup amusement ride is presently where an 800 square foot arcade exists. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23 1994 ROUL CALL INDEX Commissioner Ridgeway pointed out that the current breakdown of uses is as follows: Food is 25 percent; arcade is 28 percent; amusement rides is 29 percent; and retail is 18 percent. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Tunstall concurred that the arcades should not become 50 percent of the project, and that 30 percent of arcade use would be acceptable. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker regarding the square footages /percentages of the uses as indicated in the staff report, Mr. Tunstall stated that the amusement rides would be increased from 29 percent to approximately 35 percent to 36 percent of the current use, and the percentage of arcade use would be reduced. In response to comments by Commissioner Ridgeway regarding the percentage of uses, Mr. Tunstall replied that the applicants would agree with a condition stating that the amusement rides . would be no greater than 50 percent of the project, and arcades or any other use to be no greater than 30 percent of the project inasmuch as it is the intent to have a tenant mix on the property. Commissioner Glover suggested that a condition could state that no more than 30 percent for arcade use, and not to define the other uses. Mr. Tunstall concurred with the recommendation, and he pointed out that inasmuch as four buildings are approved for restaurant type uses that the food use would not exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area. In response to questions by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Tunstall agreed with a condition stating that the uses would not exceed 30 percent of food use; 30 percent of arcade use; and 30 percent of retail use; and that amusement rides be allowed up to 50 percent. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public - hearing was closed at this time. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3120 All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and to add Condition No. 9 stating "That food /specialty food, arcade, and retail uses shall not exceed 30 percent each, and amusement rides shall not exceed 50 percent of the permitted gross floor area of the site exclusive of covered parking. If there is a desire to exceed this limitation, an amendment to this use permit shall be required." MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the conversion of a portion of a previously approved arcade use to an amusement ride 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 conversion of a portion of Suite C -3 to an amusement ride shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan. 2. That the employees shall park on -site. 3. That the hours of operation of the amusement ride shall be . limited between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, Sunday through Thursday, and from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday and recognized holidays. i -5- COMMISSIONERS 400MONFIRM-b*\ko CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 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 converted area for amusement ride .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. 9. That food /specialty food, arcade, and retail uses shall not exceed 30 percent each, and amusement rides shall not exceed 50 percent of the permitted gross floor area of the site exclusive of covered parking. If there is a desire to exceed this limitation, an amendment to this use permit shall be required. COMMISSIONERS X 94 ION, \11RA%4*-\40 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23 1994 RGEL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3535 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to permit alterations to an existing commercial building 3535 which is nonconforming with regards to Floor Area Ratio and off- pproved street parking provisions. The proposed alterations include the renovation and expansion of an existing take -out restaurant, the renovation of a portion of the existing retail space, and the request to demolish more than 50 percent of the existing walls of the building. The proposed alterations will result in a decrease in the prorated development intensity of the site. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the construction of a new trash enclosure that encroaches 5± feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 22, Newport Beach, located at 2200 West Ocean Front, on the northwesterly corner of West Ocean Front and 22nd Street, in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square • Specific Plan area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Francis Ursini, Costa Mesa OWNER: Same as applicant William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, requested that Condition No. 4, Exhibit "A" be amended to state "That the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the subject property shall be limited to a maximum of 0.91 as proposed." and that "unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission" be deleted. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Frank Ursini, applicant, appeared before the Planning. Commission. Mr. Ursini addressed Exhibit "A ", and he asked for a clarification of Condition No. 3 requesting that the future tenant of the restaurant shall be subject to a separate use permit • 7 _ \VVt��° Soso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23 1994 R L CALL INDEX inasmuch as the use will remain the same. In reference to Condition No. 13, Mr. Ursini responded that it is feasible that Coastal Commission approval may not be necessary because of the type of reconstruction that is being done. In reference to Condition No. 15 stating that should over 75 percent of the existing perimeter walls be removed that the existing structure would be considered demolished and the subject use permit would become null and void, Mr. Ursini asked what would happen if during construction the wall would fall down. James Hewicker, Planning Director, responded to the aforementioned questions. He stated that the building will be vacated and reconstructed and it is staffs opinion that any new use in the building requiring a use permit should receive a use permit, and a use should not be 'grandfathered' that is not going to be there once the project is completed. Staff is not aware of why a Coastal Permit would not be required; however, Condition No. 13 could be modified stating that a Coastal Permit be obtained if required. Mr. Hewicker stated that if more than 75 percent of the walls should be . demolished during construction then the use permit would be void and the new building would be constructed to the current Floor Area Ratios, or the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission for a use permit. . In response to comments by Mr. Ursini regarding the use, Mr. Hewicker explained that inasmuch as the existing use does not have a use permit that, it allow the City to bring the restaurant use up to current zoning standards. Commissioner Ridgeway requested a clarification of the request for a second use permit for a restaurant use on the property. Mr. Hewicker explained that the existing use is legal nonconforming, and the restaurant use would be larger than the current use on the premises. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if the applicant maintains the identical square footage of 1,877 square feet in the restaurant would it be necessary to apply for an additional use. permit? Mr. Ursini responded that he would reduce the size of the restaurant to avoid a second use permit. Commissioner • -8- COIVIIMSSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T_ _ /f7 1!111• June LJ, lyyw ROLL CALL INDEX Gifford and Commissioner Ridgeway discussed the need to process two use permits. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the purpose of the subject use permit is that the applicant is proposing to reconstruct less than 75 percent of the existing perimeter walls to be able to continue the nonconforming structure. If a business is operating that is nonconforming because it does not have a use permit, and on the basis that the structure would be reconstructed and expanded or changes would be made in the current use, then a use permit for the use should be required so as to be in compliance with current regulations. In response to comments by Chairman Merrill, Ms. Flory responded that she considered the changes that are being made on the subject site to be voluntary abandonment. Commissioner Edwards and Ms. Flory discussed Commissioner Edwards' comments regarding the alteration of the nonconforming structure, and if the applicant maintains the same use why should the applicant be required to come back for a . second use permit. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the intent is for property owners to be allowed to reconstruct older buildings, not change the use, and to upgrade the City. He suggested that Condition No. 3, Exhibit "A ", could be amended to state that if the new restaurant take -out space is greater in size than the previous use then a new use permit would be processed. Commissioner Pomeroy explained that inasmuch as the applicant has indicated that the proposed size would be reduced to the original size that a second use permit not be required: Commissioner Gifford and Mr. Hewicker addressed the numerous changes that could be made in the new restaurant's operational characteristics. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Ursini replied that a new tenant lease would go into affect. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that a termination of a ease and a renegotiation of a new lease is not an abandonment. Ursini stated that inasmuch as he is required to retrofit the wilding for earthquake protection purposes, that the existing use COMMISSIONERS 4 `y�otjP'1Oo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T,,, 72 100d ROLL CALL WDEX would have to leave the building temporarily. Ms. Flory suggested that the Planning Commission could determine if the use is an abandonment, and if the nonconforming use changes some time in the future, then the Planning Commission could make a decision if a use permit would be required. Mr. Ursini explained that if the restaurant remains the same size it is possible that the seating area, the kitchen area, and the number of employees would remain the same. Commissioner Glover opined that the project shall not be considered an abandonment. The City is encouraging the property owners to invest money in the legal nonconforming buildings, and she suggested that if the applicant agrees to maintain the existing square footage, then he should not be required to apply for a new use permit. Ms. Flory stated that aforementioned Condition No. 3 . could be amended to state that if the new tenant space maintains the same . square footage, and the operational characteristics of the current nonconforming use are maintained, then a use permit would not be required. Mr. Jim Balding, 220 Nice Lane, No. 304, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Balding stated that to bring the building up to earthquake standards, the applicant could install an interior rigid frame into the building that was built in 1910, or to reconstruct the building as proposed. Mr. Henry Johnson, 2202 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Cominission to state that he supports the proposed project. However, he expressed concerns regarding the trash container in the alley; the possibility that a high volume take -out restaurant would be located on the site; and that the restaurant's operational characteristics would change. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that if the Planning Commission approves the subject request and if the existing restaurant remains the same square footage that the applicant would be allowed to operate the take- out restaurant as it currently exists. -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T____ ^Y 1AAA J uuG GJ, 177'4 ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Marcia Dossey, 109 - 26th Street, President of the Newport Pier Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. She said that the merchants have been encouraged to revitalize the area for economic growth for the City and for the Balboa Peninsula. The subject request would improve the.property to the existing zoning regulations, and the use would not change. She addressed the redevelopment that is in process on the Peninsula, and she determined that if the property owners would be limited in the rehabilitation of the buildings and the operational characteristics do not change, then it would be defeating the purpose for economic revitalization of the Peninsula. She said that the recommendation should be taken into consideration for all of the merchants in the area, otherwise the area would decline and the City's historical buildings and character would not be saved. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. lion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3535 subject to the All Ayes findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W, and to amend Condition No. 3 to state that in the event the area of the new take -out restaurant is larger or its operational characteristics are different than the existing restaurant, then a separate use permit shall be required. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it is not in the City's best interest to allow this type of work to be done and still require that only 75 percent of the building be addressed and old walls have to stand. He said that if it is the intent to allow the nonconforming use to be rebuilt, then the City should allow it to be rebuilt properly in the most economical manner. Commissioner Edwards supported the motion. He suggested that an amendment be added to Condition No. 13 stating "as may be ecessary." Ms. Flory recommended that Condition No. 4 be modified as previously suggested. Commissioner Pomeroy concurred with the recommendations. Commissioner Gifford asked how the present operational characteristics could be entered into the record whereby Mr. • -11- COrMUSSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH W.- ^I IMA JLL11G LJ, l7JT ROLL CALL INDEX Hewicker stated that staff would visit the existing restaurant and review the operation. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3535 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and to modify Conditions No. 3, No. 4, and No. 13 as suggested. MOTION CARRIED. Fin in 1. 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. 2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. r3. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. That the cost of the improvements to be made is minor in comparison to the value of the existing nonconforming condition. S. That the cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the other alterations proposed: 6. That the retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to maintain reasonable use of the structure. 7. That the retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to preserve a substantial property right. -12- 1 ��cl�dfl\ `y�ow��P'Po�oy�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH uui�ira J 23 1994 une , ROLL CALL E4DEX 8. That the net overall parking requirement will be reduced by one parking space in conjunction with the proposed development. 9. That the FAR of the commercial use will be reduced from 0.99 to 0.91. 10. That the proposed modification to the Zoning Code is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code, given that the proposed trash enclosure encroachment into the 10 foot rear yard setback will result in improved vehicular circulation and sight distance in the alley over the current building that encroaches to the rear property line. 11. The approval of Use Permit No. 3535 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 compliance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the existing take -out windows adjacent to the public sidewalks shall be removed or otherwise filled -in and shall not be reinstalled or utilized, unless a use permit is approved for use of said windows. 3. That in the event the area of the new take -out restaurant is larger, or its operational characteristics are different than the existing restaurant, then a separate use permit shall be required. -13- %6"%%\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 16111 Lill lly.' J uuc w, i771t ROLL CALL INDEX That the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the subject property shall be limited to a maximum of 0.91 as proposed. 5. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. That a 5 foot corner cutoff at the corner of 22nd Street and West Ocean Front be dedicated to the public prior to issuance of any building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and that the proposed structure not encroach into the newly dedicated • easement area. That the proposed structure maintain a minimum 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley, except for the proposed trash enclosure which is permitted to encroach a maximum of 5 feet into the alley setback. That any sidewalk improvements damaged during the construction of the proposed development be reconstructed to match existing. All damaged sidewalk shall be replaced in full panels as approved by the Public Works Department. All work within the public right-of-way shall be constructed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department. 0. That all proposed entry doors be designed so that they will not swing out onto the ocean Front or 22nd Street sidewalks. 1. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 43, IYY4 ROLL CALL WDEX 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. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the West Ocean Front right - of -way. Pedestrian facilities shall be maintained at all times along the West Ocean Front frontage. 12. That overhead utilities serving the site 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 unreasonable or impractical. 13. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits for construction or demolition, except as provided . for seismic upgrade pursuant to Section 20.83.070 and Chapter 15.07 of the Municipal Code, as may be necessary. 14. That the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. 15. That should over 75% of the existing perimeter walls be removed, the existing structure will be considered demolished, and this use permit shall become null and void. 16. 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. • -15- + W, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 23, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 17. 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. A. Traffic Study No. 97 Public Hearin Item No. Request to approve a traffic study for a proposed automobile TS 97 rental facility. UP3530 AND B Use Permit No 3530 Public Hearin Request to permit the establishment of an automobile rental facility which includes a car washing and maintenance facility and underground fuel. facilities on property located in the M -1 -A District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a monument sign and an electric guard gate to encroach into the required 15 foot front yard setback. LOCATION: Lots 25 and 26, Tract No. 3201, located at 4242 -4262 Campus Drive, on the southeasterly side of Campus Drive, between Dove Street and MacArthur Boulevard, across from the John Wayne Airport. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Nogle Onufer Associates Architects, Inc., San Diego OWNER: The Shattuck Family Trust, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to Condition No. 28, Exhibit "A ", requesting a Lot Line Adjustment, whereby he suggested that a Covenant be required so as to hold the two • -16- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L___ .l'1 1n AA JLLIIG W, 1�7`T ROLL CALL INDEX parcels as a single building site as long as the properties are being used together, for the duration of the use on the site. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, 979 Sandcastle Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He concurred that amended Condition No. 28 not require a Lot Line Adjustment, and that the applicant be allowed to apply for a waiver of a parcel map. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Mr. Hewicker explained that by replacing the Lot Line Adjustment with a waiver to a parcel map would require the applicant to come back to the Planning Commission. He recommends a Covenant to hold the two lots together for the duration of the use of the property, and it would not require the applicant to come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. King concurred with the recommendation. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3530 subject to the All Ayes findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and to modify Condition No. 28 as previously stated. Commissioner Edwards supported the motion; however, he supports the CC &R only because the applicant's representative consented to the amendment. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. TRAFFIC STUDY NO 97: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: FINDIN 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and • -17- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T.. 111 1 QQA JUM W, IYJT ROLL CALL WDEX circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary- modified,' or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on seven of the eight study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the intersection of Campus Drive /Dove Street, indicates that the ICU values for the A.M. and P.M. peaks will not be altered by the addition of the project. B. USE PERMIT NO, 3530 FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed application is support service in nature and as such, is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate parking will exist on -site for the proposed development. 3. That the proposed project will not have any significant environmental impact and that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 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. • -18- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH rune /a, iyy'+ POLL CALL INDEX 5. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 6. That the proposed modification to the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to allow the proposed monument sign and electric guard gate to encroach into the required 15 foot front yard setback 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 or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 7. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3530 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. NDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment, trasb areas and vehicle storage areas shall be screened from Campus Drive and adjoining properties. The proposed block wall adjacent to the Campus Drive frontage shall be a minimum 6 feet high and shall be set back a minimum 15 feet from the front property line. 3. That all automobile repairs shall be conducted within the building and no outdoor display of vehicles for sale shall be permitted. • -19- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH rune w, 1yy4 ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That grease interceptors shall be provided in all drains within the building where petroleum residues may enter the sewer system, unless otherwise permitted by the Building Department or the Utilities Department. 5. That no outdoor sound system shall be utilized on -site. 6. That all employees shall park on -site at all times. 7. That all signs shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of Newport Beach Sign Code. 8. That the proposed electric guard gate will be solely for vehicles exiting the property. That any future entry security gate shall be located to provide a minimum distance of twenty (20) feet from the front property line, and shall be subject to further review of the City Traffic Engineer. . 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 11. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 12. That all parking spaces shall be striped with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 13. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One -20 NsI �9��i�'�'yo MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 23 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. That the required handicap parking spaces shall be relocated to the nearest row of parking adjacent to the building. 14. That the intersection of the private drives and Campus Drive be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls, signs, monument signs and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. 15. That the unused drive approaches be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk; that the proposed new drive approaches be constructed with the City's flared approach standard 166 -L; and that the settled sections of curb and gutter be reconstructed along the Campus Drive frontage. . All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 16. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and drainage for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 17. 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. -21 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T.- - nz 1nnA Juric W, 1774 ROLL CALL INDEX 18. That overhead utilities serving the site 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 unreasonable or impractical. 19. That this approval of use permit applies only to the facility as a servicing facility with no customer pick -up or drop -off of vehicles to the subject property; and any change to the operational characteristics of the facility to allow for customers to pick -up or drop -off the vehicles to the site and /or for the use of a shuttle bus to transport customers to and from the site shall be subject to approval of an amendment to this use permit. 0. That the proposed monument sign adjacent to Campus Drive sball be moved back or designed in such a manner as to provide sight distance in conformance with the City's Sight Distance Standard 110 -L. The final design and positioning of the monument sign shall be approved by the Public Works Department to insure conformance with City sight distance standards. 1. That the drive entrance shall be widened to provide a minimum 14 foot wide aisle exiting the facility, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The nose of the island at the entrance shall also be relocated so as not to encroach into the public right -of -way. That the car wash area shall be protected so as to prevent drainage from the parking lot from entering the sewer system. The drain shall be connected to the sewer system and have a grease trap. The design and installation of the above facilities shall be approved by the Utilities Department. That the outdoor storage of tires and other auto related parts or merchandise shall be prohibited on -site. • -22- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 24. That the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 25. That the front of the building facing Campus Drive shall be constructed of masonry veneer or similar material as indicated on the approved elevation. 26. Landscaping along Campus Drive shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 27. That the approval of this application shall permit complete . engine rebuilding (including electrical and transmission repair), as well as tune -ups, lubrication, smog testing and brake service and installation. No painting, body work or other operations of a similar nature shall be permitted on- site unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 28. That the recordation of a Covenant shall be required so as to hold the two lots as a single building site for the duration of the use of the property. 29. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal thelight source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties and Campus Drive. 30. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate to the City's Building Department and Fire Department that the project is in compliance with the County of Orange Health Department and the City's Fire Department Regulations. 1. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to . -23- COZY MSSIONERS 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23, 1994 [LOLL CALL INDEX the City Council the revocation of this use permit, or the City Council may revoke 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. 32. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as speed in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Variance No. 1196 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the R -1.5 District which exceeds 1.5 times the V1196 buildable area of the site. The proposal also includes Cont ' d modifications to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed to 7/7/94 structure to encroach 14 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback, and 7 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback; a request to construct 6 foot high walls along the side property lines which encroach 15 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback; and two carport spaces located on the front one -half of the lot, partially open on both sides (where the Code requires that said covered parking spaces shall have side walls and an operating garage door). The modification also includes the following second floor encroachments into the required 3 foot side yard setbacks: one bay window; one greenhouse window, a heat duct; a portion of the living room; and a planter box. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 27 and 28, Block 7, Section Five, Balboa Island, located at 1508 Park Avenue, on the northerly side of Park Avenue, between The Grand Canal and Abalone Avenue, on Little Balboa Island. • -24- Con MSSIONRRs lulTikTFT 5-;9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH J 4 une 23 199 , ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: R -1.5 APPLICANT: D.W. Chesebro, Newport Beach OWNER: David Hansen, Balboa Island James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the project would benefit if there would be an enclosed garage, and that it did not exceed the floor area to land area ratio of 1.06 that was previously recommended which would allow a dwelling of approximately 1,524 square feet of living space. The public hearing was reopened in connection with this item, and Mr. Chesebro, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that his project is in line with the other 30 foot by 60 foot lots that are located on Little Balboa Island, and the proposed square footage would be no larger than the adjacent structure located at 201 Abalone Avenue. He emphasized that the two dwellings are both appropriate for the area. His property is one of five structures on Little Balboa Island with no alley access. The remaining properties on Little Balboa Island can have carports in the alleys, and they are able to add square footage to their structures without coming to the Planning Commission for approval. He concluded that he should have the same property Tights as the other 1,495 structures located on Little Balboa Island. He pointed out that the proposed plan would minimize the affect on the neighbors, and the project has been designed so that it would not be known that a carport exists on the front one -half of the lot. Commissioner Pomeroy stated the massing of the building has been moved back on the lot, and that from the street it would be virtually impossible to see in the open area of the carport. The neighbors indicated to him that they would allow the requested square footage; however, they have requested that the garage be enclosed. Mr. Chesebro commented that the reason for not enclosing the garage is to maximize the square footage inside the structure; however, he has no problem enclosing the garage. �a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES JLLLIV W, 1JJT ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy expressed his concern that an illegal room could be built in the space behind the bedrooms in the area behind the garage inasmuch as there is a roof above the space, and he suggested a condition that would preclude the applicant from enclosing the space. Mr. Chesebro concurred with the suggested condition. Discussion followed between Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker, and Commissioner Edwards with respect to the necessity for that type of condition. Ms. Mary Ann McDaniel, 127 Jade Avenue, President of the Little Balboa Island Property Owners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. She said that it is the consensus of the Board of Directors that a significant effort was not made in downsizing the property, and that 1,900 square feet is not acceptable by enclosing the garage. The Board of Directors requested that the variance be denied. She explained that the majority of the homeowners moved to Little Balboa Island at the expense of size in order to be able to reside on Little Island. The homeowners are concerned that the sides of the garage would be open for the purpose of additional living space, and that the project would set a precedent in the area. She addressed their concerns regarding the three story structure, and that the structure would not be aesthetically pleasing to the public coming on to Little Island. Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that the mass of the proposed structure that is closest to the street is less than the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Hewicker stated that there is no limit on the number of stories in a residential structure; however, the height limit of a structure is regulated. Commissioner Edwards stated that the Floor Area Ratio of 1.06 is typical in the neighborhood and what is being proposed by the applicant, and is consistent with the neighborhood. Ms. McDaniel explained that the residents who contacted the City were informed that a structure of 1,020 square feet would be allowed on the -26- COMMISSIONERS ��' ? o AP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES J ullG GJ, 1779 ROLL CALL INDEX property. She further explained that the neighbors are familiar with the use of square footage of a structure and not Floor Area Ratio. Mr. Hewicker explained that the subject smaller lot does not back up to an alley, and the lot does not have a front yard setback designated on the Districting Map similar to every other lot on Balboa Island. He explained that to take the subject 30 foot by 60 foot lot, require a 20 foot front yard setback, and require a 10 foot rear yard setback because the subject lot does not back up to an alley, (most of the dwellings located on Balboa Island have a 5 foot setback off the alley), and the fact that the setbacks that are . required under the Zoning Ordinance on the subject lot are disproportionate to the setbacks that are required on a typical Balboa Island lot that has a street frontage and an alley, that is what determined the 1,080 square foot structure as.the allowable gross floor area. . Commissioner Gifford asked if it would be equitable to require the subject lot a 20 foot front yard setback. Ms. McDaniel replied that it would not be equitable. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover regarding Exhibit "B" (includes two car garage in floor area calculation), Ms. McDaniel replied that the conditions require the applicant to enclose the garage but the square footage of the garage would be 177 square feet and not 387 square feet that should be considered garage space. Mr. Laycock explained that by enclosing the two garage spaces it would be 1.17 FAR or 2,119 square feet which would maintain the same living space of 1,733 square feet as in Exhibit "A" (submitted by applicant). If both garage spaces would be included and a 1.06 FAR would be maintained, then the square footage of the living space would be reduced to 1,524 square feet. Ms. McDaniel stated that the 1,524 square feet would be more of a compromise with the homeowners. If the aforementioned square footage would be changed then Condition No. 2, Exhibit "B" would be modified to be 1,910 square feet, including the two car garage. • -27- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T____ ^� 4AAA J LLUG LJ, 17Y-+ ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Stephen Bromberg, 1506 Park Avenue and adjacent to the subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission to request that the Planning Commission deny the subject proposal. The floor to land ratio that is used in the staff report is based on a typical lot of the neighborhood, and the subject lot is not a typical lot on Little Balboa Island. He said that the subject project would impact three properties because the applicant is attempting to apply a typical situation to a non - typical lot. Commissioner Edwards stated that one of the characteristics of a variance that the applicant has to submit is if there is something that is unique about the lot which would allow the property owner to be eligible for a variance. If the 1.05 FAR and 367 square feet of garage space would be permitted then the property owner and the homeowners would be 156 square feet apart. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Bromberg replied that his property has a 3 foot side yard setback, . the rear yard setback is 5 feet, and the proposed structure would be moved back 2 feet further than his structure because he does not have a key lot and there is an alley at the side of his property. Mr. Bromberg emphasized that the same standards cannot apply to the three 30 foot by 60 foot lots that are applied to the other lots on Little Island. Commissioner Pomeroy said that a variance allows a property owner to construct a lot that is comparable to the other lots in the area. Mr. Bromberg said that the proposed structure would have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and on the surrounding properties. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Hewicker explained that an open carport is not allowed on the front one -half of the lot. One of the carports is included in the permitted gross floor area on a lot, but a fully enclosed garage is included in the gross floor area. Mr. Bromberg said that if there would be an open carport on the front of the property that the fumes from the automobiles would be harmful to the neighbors. He said that the 156 square foot standard for the carport is not an • -28- \PC) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F, i►iffLU T5P L._.. � 1nnA J 4111 W, 1JJT ROLL CALL MDEX appropriate standard because it is a different type of lot that exists in the area. Commissioner Glover asked Mr. Bromberg how much liveable space would he consider appropriate whereby Mr. Bromberg indicated that he was not qualified to determine the appropriate square footage. Ms. Flory stated that the factor that supported a variance was the default 20 foot front yard setback requirement, and one of the suggestions in the staff report was to apply similar setbacks to the subject property with the other properties on the block, and therefore, it would give the applicant equal property rights with the other property owners. Inasmuch as there is no alley at the rear of the property, the Planning Commission has the option to consider the carports at the front one -half of the property. She addressed the 1.06 FAR which is applied to the property and the allowable 1,910 square feet of liveable area, and the fact that it is . for the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the garages would be open or closed. Ms. Flory stated that the 2,119 square feet would increase the Floor Area Ratio to over and above what the other residents in the area have. The Planning Commission and staff reviewed the 1,524 square feet of liveable space, 1.06 FAR, and the 367 square feet of enclosed garage space, and the 1,910 square feet, and the 177 square feet of carport. Ms. Flory suggested that the Planning Commission consider the subject setbacks to the adjacent setbacks, and the lack of the alley access as the factors in determining the variance. Mr. James Dunlap, 201 Abalone Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that his concern regarding the subject proposal is that the mass of the structure would impact three adjacent properties and the project could set a precedent on Little Island. Mr. Dunlap strongly opposed the carport because the exhaust and noise would be harmful to his residence. Mr. Dunlap discussed the allowable square footages and the FAWs -29- COMMIS8IONFIRS ON d\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES J LLLLV L.J, iJ7'r ROLL CALL INDEX herein he indicated that 1.50 FAR with no variance the applicant would be allowed to construct a 1,080 square foot structure. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. ewicker replied that the applicant received the permission for a b cut from the City Council, and one parking space on the street would be eliminated because of the curb cut. Mr. Bob Calkins, 124 Crystal Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that in 1972 the 1.5 FAR was pproved because of the height and mass of the buildings that were beginning to appear on Balboa Island, and subsequently the umber of required parking spaces, the number of stories, and oof heights were affected. Mr. Calkins discussed the average front and setbacks of Little Island as 7 feet and not 5 feet, the Floor ea Ratios, and the square feet of liveable area. He said that be 1.5 FAR is the buildable area and the 1.059 FAR is total lot irea. The allowable square footage could easily be built in two . tories with a 24 x 44 foot pad and that would leave a 10 foot rear and setback, and 200 additional feet could be used for rchitectural design. r. Ben Girling, 200 Crystal Avenue, appeared before the Tanning Commission. He addressed his concerns as the number f proposed stories, square footage, and the trend of neighbor atching neighbor which is counter to the community feeling that xists on Balboa Island. He said that the property owners must um to the City to seek a compromise between building desires d resident concerns which would benefit all concerned while inimizing the opportunity to deviate at a later date from the greed upon plans. W. Chesebro reappeared before the Planning Commission. He fated that staff determined the 1.06 FAR by the 30 foot by 85 oot lot with a 2,700 square foot structure. If a standard structure xisted on a 30 foot by 85 foot lot and there was a carport the 1.058 would be increased in ratio. Mr. Laycock stated that the ratio to land area that was used was utilizing the typical 30 foot by -30- '`b� Gio� od2$s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH kT11TNiWii 9 JullG W, IYYY ROLL CALL INDEX 85 foot lot with a 5 foot front yard setback, a 5 foot rear yard setback and 3 foot side yard setbacks. The 30 foot by 60 foot lot the land area ratio to a typical lot would be 1.058 FAR or 1,904 square feet of buildable area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Laycock concurred that staffs comparison of the other lots did not include the additional square footage that would be gained ff one parking space would not be enclosed. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public bearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the liveable space and two enclosed garages that would be allowed without a variance, Mr. Hewicker replied that 1,080 square feet less the area of the garage of 367 square feet would be the liveable area. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the proposed structure is less ass from the street, and the third story fits into the roof line. If the building were redesigned into a two story structure and the structure would be moved out to the front of the property, there would be a higher building directly facing the street. He said that be would not grant more than the other residents' structures. If the applicant were given 1,524 square feet of interior space, that would be equivalent to the adjacent properties, and the 1,727 square feet of liveable space would not be in compliance with the neighborhood. Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1196 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ", and to change Condition No. 2 to 1,910 square feet, including two enclosed garages, and it would allow 1,524 square feet of liveable space. Discussion ensued between staff and the Planning Commission regarding the reduction of 177 square feet of liveable space, and a redesign of the project. The motion was amended to continue Motion he variance and to request that the applicant come back to the Planning Commission with a redesign of the structure showing the 1,524 square feet of liveable area with a fully enclosed two car garage. • -31- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L_.-- �q 4AAA J Unu 40, 177Y ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Gifford and Commissioner Pomeroy discussed Finding No. 2, Exhibit 'B ", stating that ..the proposed project is generally comparable to the size, bulk, and height to other buildings in the surrounding area." In response to Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Chesebro agreed to continue the variance to the July 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. All Ayes The motion to continue Variance No. 1196 to the July 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting with a redesign of the plans as previously stated was voted on, and MOTION CARRIED. s s s Variance No. 1198 (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to permit an as -built alteration to an existing single family V1198 . dwelling which has resulted in the existing structure exceeding the allowable gross floor area of 1.5 times the buildable area of the Denied site, on property located in the R -1.5 District. LOCATION: Lot 12, Block 14, Section Three, Balboa Island, located at 322 Diamond Avenue, on the easterly side of Diamond Avenue, between Balboa Avenue and North Bay Front, on Balboa Island. ZONE: R -1.5 APPLICANT: Ian J.N. Harrison, AIA, Newport Beach OWNERS: Douglas and Barbara Broyles, Saratoga The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Ian Harrison, architect and applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the addition of the floor space was approved by the Building Department, but not by the -32- ``��ypo�t��'poZpos o MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH J un 23 1994 e , ROLL CALL MEX Planning Department. He stated that the property owner purchased the property as it currently exists. Mr. Harrison addressed the range of area ratios, setbacks, and buildable square footage that exist on Balboa Island, which gives the Planning Commission the ability to grant variances on Balboa Island. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Harrison replied that the property owners purchased the property with the area in question as interior floor space, and the residence had previously been lived in by the original property owners. The property was purchased through a realty company. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that if the garage would be converted to a carport that the building would be in compliance with the City's standards, and a variance would not be required. Mr. Harrison replied that the owners would prefer not to have to make the conversion. . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Harrison agreed with staffs calculations that the structure is approximately 97± square feet over the allowable gross floor area. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the City does a Report of Residential Building Records but the inspectors do not pull and review plans to see if alterations had been made. She said that it is not the City's responsibility to disclose or to find out for a property buyer or property owner whether the structure complies with all of the regulations. James Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that when the RBR application is applied for that the inspectors list the building permits that have been applied for and issued on the property. The inspector does not visit the property with the building plans that were approved on the property. In reference to the subject property it would be difficult for the inspector to determine that there were an additional 97± -33- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T... -.. I" InnA " JYlI\r LJ, 1JJT ROLL CALL INDEX square feet in the building that had been approved by the Building Department. He said that it was not until the City discovered the abuses of the subject floor plan, and visited the three dwelling units on Balboa Island, that it was found that a floor had been constructed and there was a habitable space above the garage. In response to comments by Chairman Merrill, Ms. Flory explained that the factor of who the property owner was that filled in the space is not relevant to the issuance of a variance, and that the Planning Commission addresses only the property. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and staff with respect to the inspection and disclosure of the property at the time the building was constructed and sold. Motion was made to deny Variance No. 1198 subject to the Motion findings in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner DiSano addressed the staff report and Ms. Flory's comments concerning variances. . . Commissioner Pomeroy supported the motion. He said that the property owner could convert the garage into a carport so as to retain the liveable space. All Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses on the other lots within the surrounding neighborhood, inasmuch as the subject property maintains the same dimensions as most of the other lots on Balboa Island and does not have any unique topographical or other characteristics different than other lots. 2. That the granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the permitted gross structural area, is not necessary -34- �V Or' �S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES rune L3, iyy,+ ZLL CALL INDEX for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant inasmuch as the original structure was constructed to within 165± sq.ft. of the maximum allowable floor area permitted by Code and that the amount of living area within the dwelling is greater than the typical dwelling unit on Balboa Island. 3. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will be injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and to the general welfare of the City, inasmuch as the proposed gross floor area of the structure in relation to the size of the subject property is greater than other properties in the neighborhood and the approval of this application under the circumstances, will grant the applicant rights in excess . of those in the area and will set an undesirable precedence for similar applications in the future. A General Plan Amendment No 94 -1(A) (Continued Public Item No.6 Hearing) GPA 94 -1A Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating property at the westerly corner of Newport Center LcP 34 Drive and Granville Drive from "Multi Family Residential' to A 805 "Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial" uses and to allow 5,000 square feet of office development. Cont ' d to 7/7/94 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND -35' COMMISSIONERS I. a0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Julio LJ, 17y* ROLL CALL INDEX R Local Coastal Program Amendment No 34 (Continued Public Hearing Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan redesignating property at the westerly corner of Newport Center Drive and Granville Drive from "Multi Family Residential" to "Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial" uses and allow 5,000 square feet of office development. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND C Amendment No 805 (Continued Public Hearing) . Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 48 so as to reclassify the property at the westerly comer of Newport Center Drive and Granville Drive from the U District to the APF [5,000sf] District, and to reclassify the remainder of the property previously known as the Granville Apartments, from the U District to the MFR (69 du) District; and to establish various front yard setbacks on Districting Map No. 48 which pertain to each property. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 10/20 (Resubdivisions No. 23 and 240), located at 1001 -1147 Granville Drive, on the westerly corner of Newport Center Drive and Granville Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Burnham USA Equities, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER; The Granville, Newport Beach • -36- VA 0t0�0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES W J LLlfV LJ, LJIT ROLL CALL INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant requested that Item No. 6 be continued so as to allow further discussions with existing tenants within the Granville Apartments. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 6 to the July Ayes * * * 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, Absent * MOTION CARRIED. s s s The Planning Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened at 10:00 p.m. = s : Chairman Merrill suggested that Item No. 8, regarding the Central Item No Balboa Specific Area Plan be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting inasmuch as be would be retiring from the Planning Commission at the end of the meeting, and that the postponement would benefit the new Commissioner who would be . appointed by the City Council for the July 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Douglas Boyd representing the Peninsula Point Association appeared before the Planning Commission, and he recommended that Item No. 8 be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting inasmuch as the public hearing would be opened at a late hour. Chairman Merrill requested a show of hands from the public and it was unanimously recommended that the public hearing be continued to the July 21, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. It was recommended that the public hearing be the first item on the Agenda for the July 21, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Commissioner Pomeroy made a motion and it was voted on to All Ayes continue Item No. 8, regarding the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan, to the July 21, 1994, Planning Commission meeting, and that the public hearing be the first item on the Agenda after any non- controversial items. • -37- W COAUMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ' JLL11M W, 1JJT ROLL CALL rNDEX x x s A. Traffic d No 9 (Continued blic Hearing) stem No. Request to approve a traffic study for a proposed McDonald's Ts 93 take -out restaurant facility; and the acceptance of an environmental document. UP3516 AND Approved B Use Permit No. 3516 (Continued Public Hearin Request to establish a McDonald's take -out and drive through restaurant facility on property located in the 'Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal includes a building design with two exterior walk -up order windows, an enclosed ancillary eating area, and an outdoor eating area. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces; a modification to the Sign Code so as to allow a ground identification sign and a ground mounted menu sign on the property, whereas the Sign Code allows only one pole or ground sign per site; and the use of the McDonald's logo on each of the six proposed directional signs. LOCATION: Lots 11 and 12, Block 227, Section A, and Record of Survey 76 -46, located at 2807 Newport Boulevard, on the northerly side of 28th Street, between Newport Boulevard (northbound) and Newport Boulevard (southbound), in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ONE: SP -6 APPLICANT- McDonald's Corporation, San Diego • -38- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r...,o 1a 100A J LLLR. L..J, 1JJ7 ROLL CALL INDEX OWNER: Bedford Road, Inc., Irvine James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the Executive Summary of the Traffic Report. He stated that the walking/biking percentages for non - summer and summer were reversed and the non- summer percentage should read 25 percent and the summer percentage should read 15 percent. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. erry King, J. A. King & Associates, 979 Sandcastle Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King stated that McDonald's addressed the issues d concerns that were discussed by the Planning Commission and e residents at the April 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting as follows: Outdoor speaker noise - the speakers have been laminated. Face to face ordering and an extra window has been ncluded in the design of the revised project to accommodate the . ovement of customers coming through the site and to eliminate utdoor noise or annoyance from the speaker. Inadequate zndscaping and light spillage - Additional landscaping was ' cluded in the redesign and a wall was installed to protect from the fight and glare of automobiles and to help protect light escaping from he premises Pole signs - the two 25 foot high pole signs that were roposed by the applicant have been replaced with one monument treet sign as opposed to two monument signs. Architecture - cDonald's consulted with the developer of the 28th Street Marina o use the colors and wood structure and redesigned the architecture f the proposed building so it would be more compatible with the crane themes Congestion - McDonald's employed the City's onsultant to review the vehicular circulation and as a resu14 an mployee will be placed on the lot to monitor and handle the peak our traffic, keep the automobiles moving, and monitor the parking ot activity similar to McDonald's on West Coast Highway. latter - r. King referred to the City Manager's letter dated February 24, 1994, suggesting that there may be a requirement to have cDonald's pay for a portion of the litter control program near he beach. It would isolate one restaurant operator, and the cost A $23.00 a square foot for the 1,500 square feet of the restaurant • -39- COMMISSIONERS NUM � 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Muii►lilfllyy rune w, lyy't ROLL CALL INDEX is excessive. The cost exceeds almost double what some of the tentative improvements would be for local areas. McDonald's proposes to clean up trash every 30 minutes which includes a neighborhood pickup of cleaning the 28th Street Marina frontage up to their property line and to maintain the trash pickup in that area He suggested that a condition state that litter would be picked up along 28th Street to West Ocean Front. Hours of operation - cDonald's reduced the hours of operation to comply with the neighbors' requests. Pedestrian traffic, area circulation, project access - The Traffic Consultant collected material and information to monitor existing McDonald's operations and their operational characteristics and to study the assumptions that were disclosed in the . original documentation of the traffic and pedestrian study. Improve the access to the restrooms and provide access for both sexes to the restaurant - the condition was met in the redesign of the building and it increased the building size by 9 percent but the building remains at 25 percent of the allowable FAR. . Commissioner Gifford asked if the applicant would accept conditions concerning the employee on the lot to handle the congestion and the litter? Mr. King stated that McDonald's has a national policy for the trash and how the lots are cleaned, and the applicant would commit to a condition. Mr. Hewicker indicated that the applicant did not submit a written agreement concerning trash and litter as requested during the April 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. King responded that McDonald's is working with several agencies with respect to a larger project, and McDonald's feels that to include 28th Street to West Ocean Front in their proposal addresses the immediate area roblem. As a corporation and a local operator they have been involved in other litter control programs as well as area wide cleanups, including Back Bay and beaches since the restaurant opened on West Coast Highway in the City. McDonald's would like to have the freedom to use the revenues of the joint operations to address the larger area issues raised by organizations Eke the Surfrider Foundation and others. They do not want to advocate their responsibility to the immediate area. Mr. King also indicated that the applicant would accept a condition •-40- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH rune v, iyy4 ROLL CALL MMEX concerning an employee on the lot to handle the congestion. . Kent Stoddard, 2700 Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of himself and several neighbors in the 28th Street Marina to oppose the take -out restaurant. He fated that the project is inappropriate and would be a too intense use of the property; the bright lights; additional trash; odors; noise; loitering; and traffic congestion would be a burden for the over - urdened area. Mr. Stoddard compared the use permit pplication that McDonald's submitted to the City in 1991, roperty located at 2727 Newport Boulevard, and was denied by he Planning Commission, to the proposed take -out restaurant. Fie said that the proposed establishment would offer only walk -up d drive thru outside ordering and food pickup, and that the high olume take -out restaurant would not upgrade the area. The roposed design with 6 employees is required to have 36 off - street arking spaces; however, 28 on -site parking spaces would be rovided and the applicant requested parking credit for the 8 . ehicle stacking lane of the drive -thru facility to reach the required 6 parking spaces. Inasmuch as the adjacent area has little vailable on -street parking, the request should not be granted. e proposed lot allows space for 4 vehicles to stack between the rder window and the end of the stacking lane at the driveway, d be expressed a concern that automobiles would block the veway and sidewalk and the southbound lanes on Newport oulevard. Mr. Stoddard addressed his concerns regarding the raffic circulation and pedestrian safety in the areas adjacent to the ake -out restaurant. He questioned if the proposed 6 employees ,would be able to perform the required restaurant duties, including rash pickup and monitor traffic on the parking lot. Mr. Stoddard ddressed the aforementioned litter agreement that the applicant as asked to submit to the City, and he questioned if the take -out estaurant would generate new revenue for the City inasmuch as I would take away business from existing businesses. He said that ore than 95 percent of the 35 eating establishments contacted were opposed to the construction of McDonald's inasmuch as here is not enough business to currently share. The Balboa eninsula Point Homeowners Association, the Central Newport • -41- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES rune w, iyy4 ROLL CALL INDEX Homeowner's Association, and the majority of the Newport Pier Association members oppose the application. He indicated that the Police Department expressed concerns regarding the feasibility of disturbance, loitering, traffic, and related problems concerning the subject establishment. A petition was signed by 528 residents opposing the application. He commented that Cannery Village would benefit from retail, or perhaps more needed and revenue producing metered parking. He concluded that once the City has zoned an area as partially residential, it has the responsibility to those residents to take reasonable steps to insure that their quality of life is not impacted by later development. Mr. Gary DePerine, 2600 Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of himself and several homeowners to oppose the take -out restaurant. He stated that the concerns are the intense median strip use; traffic problems; and it would harm the local charm and character of the City. He . questioned if there is a McDonald's as close to the beach as the proposed McDonald's. He referred to the Traffic Report's reference to beach traffic, and he questioned if the traffic figures used as comparisons from Santa Monica and other nearby beach establishments are comparable to the proposed establishment. Mr. DePerine questioned the pedestrian traffic figures and circulation pattern as stated in the Traffic Report, and he concluded that a signal should be installed for pedestrian safety. If the application would be approved by the Planning Commission he suggested the following conditions: longer queue lines; that a uniformed guard be on the site after 10:00 p.m.; reduce the operating hours to 10:00 p.m. weekdays and 12:00 midnight on the week -ends; limit the monument sign; provide a written trash plan; eliminate the logo signs from the directional signs; and more employee parking be imposed. Mr. DePerine concluded that he has a concern that there would be a drop in residential property values if the establishment would be developed. Ms. Marlynne Stoddard, 2700 Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. She addressed the results of the RUDAT Study concerning Cannery Village and McFadden Square • -42- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 23, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 1983, including the traffic circulation on Newport and Balboa Boulevards. She stated that since 1983 nothing has been done to be infrastructure with the exception of one traffic signal at 21st treet, and there has been an increase in traffic on the Peninsula ce 1983. The proposed take -out restaurant would be disastrous o the area, and approval would further impede the traffic n response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Don ebb, City Engineer, replied that since 1983 the City restructured he parking lot and slightly changed the circulation in the cFadden Square area, and the aforementioned signal at 21st treet was a part of the program. Additional studies have been aken of the intersection of Balboa and Newport Boulevards, and he results of the RUDAT Study have not necessarily been proven o be as confusing as it was described in the report. . Jean R. Clark, 203 - 28th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. She addressed her concerns regarding the traffic on . 8th Street, and trash in the area. W. Bill Cook, 2600 Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Tanning Commission. He referred to the petition that was signed y 528 residents to oppose the take -out restaurant. He said that A the households that were contacted between 26th Street and 2nd Street over a couple of weekend days, and found people at ome, only four people declined to sign the petition. He ommented that the concerns were traffic, pedestrian safety, trash, d the potential unwholesome clientele that would gravitate to e subject property. In reference to the aforementioned use ermit that McDonald's applied for and was denied by the Tanning Commission, Mr. Cook stated that major concerns then is now were late night noise and traffic, pedestrian traffic during he summer, and that the take -out restaurant would be detrimental o the neighborhood, and general welfare of the City. He oncluded that the location in this neighborhood is not suitable for McDonald's restaurant. • -43 a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June L3, lYY4 ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Marcia Dossey, President of the Newport Pier Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. She said that the official position of the Association is that they are not going to take a position in the matter. She said that there are several sues that come to light in the competition of a mixed -use area. She stated that they have their own problems that they need to focus on, and that the majority of the members attending the sociation's meeting agreed not to take a position. Mr. Carlo Mione, 42 Seton Road, Irvine, and former restaurant operator in Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that McDonald's is one of the most . responsive companies to community needs. McDonald's has spent millions of dollars to not have obnoxious fumes, and if there would be a food use on the subject property there could not be a better company to oversee it. The traffic congestion in the area would xist whether the take -out restaurant is there or not. McDonald's . would not be a destination point. The proposed operator of McDonald's has proven to be responsive over the years to be responsible to the specific needs of Newport Beach. Mr. Bill Stevens, 2711 West Balboa, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that there would be an impact of traffic and a shortage of parking spaces in the lot if the traffic projections are correct. Ms. Melissa Schmand, 124 - 27th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the take -out restaurant. She submitted photographs of her visits to the .McDonald's restaurants in Santa Monica and Seal Beach. She pointed out that the Santa Monica location is more of a commercial area than a beach property, and her concern was that their security does not start until 10:00 p.m Ms. Shirley Phillips, 1420 West Ocean Front and property owner f 2825 Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. She addressed the deterioration of the subject • -44- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES r....., in i nne ROLL CALL INDEX property, and she stated that McDonald's would be an improvement over the 'mess' that exists now. Mr. Jerry King reappeared before the Planning Commission in response to aforementioned statements. He stated that the aforementioned use permit that was denied by the Planning Commission bad reasons for denial that the subject project does not have, i.e. the ability to park, and the project had an exposed exterior eating area on a second level at the rear of the building. A McDonald's restaurant was previously approved at Edgewater Place in Newport Landing, and 22 parking spaces were waived; however, it was not built because they could not come to terms with the landowner. The total number of weekend days during the summer months is 28 days a year, and that would be when there could be potential traffic problems, if in fact the numbers are correct. The residents from the Associations in the neighborhood specifically requested that McDonald's have a local area operator . if the restaurant would be approved; therefore, Mr. Lardis, the operator of the West Coast Highway McDonald's, and his sons would operate the restaurant. Mr. King addressed the meetings that McDonald's had with the local Associations regarding the litter program. He pointed out that McDonald's requested meetings with the residents of 28th Street residents; however, they did not respond with a meeting date. McDonald's could have placed petitions in their restaurants and walked the beaches so as to submit thousands of signatures to the Planning Commission; however, McDonald's wanted the project to be approved based on their responsiveness to the issues that were raised by the neighbors and by the Planning Commission. He said that McDonald's in Santa Monica considers themselves to be a beach establishment, and he discussed the traffic that comes to the take -out restaurant throughout the day. Mr. King responded to comments that were previously made regarding traffic counts and operational characteristics of other restaurants, and the aforementioned RUDAT Study and the residents' concerns regarding the area in 1983. He commented that if the residents want the City to be redeveloped by other than private sector redevelopment then their taxes would go up. When the residents moved into the 28th Street . -45- COtb>MSSIONERs o�d�dis `y O' � P� t o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June LJ, iryw ROLL CALL INDEX Marina they were asked to sign a disclosure statement stating that it was a mixed -use project, that had marine repair activity, boat oise on The Rhine, and it expressly stated that the residents ould have no control over the ground commercial use in their roject. They were advised that there were existing restaurants and ars with permitted entertainment in the area. The same buyers ere asked to acknowledge the commercial zoning in the area and ere advised to consult the City with respect to the permitted ommercial activities that could occur across the street before they urchascd their land. He stated that the Planning Commission is emg requested to deny a permitted business that has been flowed throughout the commercially zoned areas of the City and meets the requirements of the area zoning with its conditions. e project as redesigned does meet those requirements. The roject would be a major corporate reinvestment in an area that s just starting redevelopment based on the economy that is being ,urned around. The project addresses the concerns regarding litter d all of the issues raised by the citizens. Major corporate vestments by companies that become good business citizens and ood operators are needed in Newport Beach. Based on the Initial tudy of the project it was found to be totally insignificant with espect to the environmental impact and the project is consistent th the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Local oastal Program Land Use Plan, and it is consistent with the EQA and City guidelines. response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy acerning a written cleaning and policing program that was reviously asked for by the Planning Commission, Mr. King replied hat McDonald's faxed a document to him that defines the one lock radius cleanup, the 30 minute cleanups of the local area, and his date the cleanup in front of the 28th Street Marina was added hich was included in a revised document sent to the City, and the eanup to West Ocean Front Boulevard along 28th Street was so added because it is the major direct street access to the each. The larger program has not come together because of ompeting interests of the environmental groups and their ability o participate with money. McDonald's has acknowledged that the • -46 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES - JU11G W, 177`I ROLL CALL �� groups cannot participate with money but they will add their name to the program; however, they will help with volunteers on city- wide cleanups, and that is consistent with what McDonald's has done nationally since their inception. Mr. Hewicker commented that staff also requested a written document concerning the litter program, Mr. King explained the litter program that McDonald's consistently maintains in the surrounding areas of their restaurants. In response to comments by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. King read a document that states At opening and every 30 minutes throughout the day liner is picked up within one block radius of the restaurant including the perimeter of the 28th Street Marina project and west to West Ocean Front periodically through the day through the summer months. During the public hearing McDonald's added 28th Street from the restaurant all the way to West Ocean Front, and that is the street that comes directly into the restaurant site from the beach area and is the logical path of beach customers that they expect to come to the restaurant. (Staff and the Planning . Commission could not locate the document in their packet.) In response to comments by Commissioner Pomeroy with respect to a conversation that he previously had with Mr. King, Mr. King replied that the majority of the people who the Planning Commission heard during the public hearing are people who had to sign a disclosure statement with respect to commercial activity including restaurants and take -out food establishments in the area. Chairman Merrill and Mr. King discussed the disclosure statement that was signed by the residents. Mr. Hewicker stated that McDonald's submitted a trash program to the City in a letter to staff dated May 26, 1994. Commissioner DiSano asked what oth er establishments have submitted written trash carry -out plans to the City. He emphasized that specifying only one applicant in the City, who has a good reputation in another location, is asking for a trash pickup plan and now saying that the submitted plan is insufficient. Mr. Hewicker explained that the request for the plan came from the offer of the McDonald's Corporation to furnish to the Planning Commission a plan because McDonald's was the only operator that had a plan for sending young people into the community to -47- on N ,� Q0c ,�\ MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T____ .1 InnA J LL11G L0, 1771 ROLL CALL INDEX police the trash that was dropped on the ground by people purchasing food from their restaurant. There was a condition of approval on the use permit at the April 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting that had been based upon a conversation that the City Manager had with McDonald's indicating their willingness to pay for or provide the City with revenues to hire students to go out during the summer months and police the area - from Cannery Village to the ocean front, and from 32nd Street. The response from McDonald's was that it would be too costly and that they had a plan that they were working with Surfrider Foundation and other environmental groups that would gain them some corporate sponsor recognition, and that they would rather do that then give money to the City to hire the people to do the same thing. McDonald's responded that they would pick up trash in a one block area wherein he indicated that the plan would have been inadequate. Commissioner DiSano stated that he was not aware of any required written litter control program individually to a . restaurant. Mr. Hewicker stated that he does not know of any other corporation or restaurant that has a program that Mr. King was referring to where they go out and pick up trash. Commissioner Ridgeway concurred that the Planning Commission requested a written litter program from McDonald's. He indicated that an articulate condition could be added to the use permit requiring a written program. Commissioner Edwards requested a clarification of the traffic circulation in the area that concerns the residents. Commissioner Ridgeway requested a clarification of the queuing of automobiles inasmuch as during the peak hour the traffic could be backed up on Newport Boulevard (southbound). He stated that McDonald's employs more than six employees in their take- out restaurants. Mr. King responded to Commissioner Edwards' question wherein be replied that traffic has always existed on Newport Boulevard. Marketing studies for any food service operation indicate where • -4& db MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 23 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX the critical mass is, and that is why they want to locate in those areas. They would not have to rely on advertising for destination, and all they have to do is identify themselves so the people in the area can reach them. The peak hour summer traffic is legendary in the City, and McDonald's is trying to serve the beach going public with a, reasonably priced meal in a centrally located location. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. King replied that the West Coast Highway McDonald's was not designed for walk -in traffic, and it was designed as a destination restaurant. He confirmed that McDonald's intends to employ six employees whereby he referred to the square footage of the project and the customer based operation. Mr. King further discussed the activity regarding the cleanup program that has occurred between McDonald's and the businesses in the area and Surfriders Foundation. . In response to a request by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Rich Edmonton, City Traffic Engineer, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Edmonton concurred that traffic currently exists in the area, and that McDonald's would not be a destination restaurant particularly on weekends during the summer months. In reference to the proposed queues, Mr. Edmonton replied that the queues will occur at two distinct places and one is the food ickup window and the second is at the ordering window; however, if there would be a backup at the ordering window an employee could go further back into the queue to take an order. There is a reasonably good chance that the queue problem could be solved. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill with respect to the feasibility of traffic congestion occurring because of traffic oing southbound on Newport Boulevard to the beach area and traffic going north on Newport Boulevard and traffic entering the restaurant area, Mr. Edmonton replied that when the traffic is backed up and is not moving, it would not make much of a difference to the people coming out of the restaurant, but that it would depend on driver courtesy for people coming out of the -49- V 00 " %_ V0NF\0t\11%\\&0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T.. 72 100A W III-1-11 IY1 W, .I _ ROLL CALL INDEX restaurant area. He said that he did not see much of a problem occurring after studying the site. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford with respect to the Traffic Study and the fact that it does not indicate the.average number of automobiles during the summer months, Mr. Edmonton replied that the City periodically counts the major roadways in the City during the winter and summer months. The last counts on Balboa Boulevard were counted on a summer weekday in 1991 and the 14,000 vehicles was a number that was measured between 28th Street and 30th Street on West Balboa Boulevard. The difference between the winter and summer counts that were taken in 1991 was 1,000 or 2,000 automobiles a day. The big difference of traffic volume during the winter and summer months is on Newport Boulevard because that is the roadway that the tourists use during the summer months. Mr. Edmonston explained that typically the numbers that are studied are weekday numbers because on the weekends there is a great difference from . weekend to weekend depending on the weather. The count is taken for three or four days and then the average count is listed. Commissioner Gifford addressed the crossing of one -half of a four lane street in 8.5 seconds wherein she asked if the idea is that the public would go to the middle of the street and wait until the next direction is clear. Mr. Edmonton replied that many people do not want to leave a curb until they can get at least half way across the street because of the distance of automobiles coming at them and that is why only half the distance was used. Mr. Edmonton concurred with Commissioner Gifford that the statement means that no one waits in the street without a median until they can get all the way across the street. Commissioner Gifford and Mr. Edmonton discussed the number of seconds that it takes to cross a four lane road and the average traffic gaps of approximately 10.7 seconds. In response to a request by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Justin Farmer, Traffic Consultant, Fullerton, appeared before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that a statement in the Traffic Report states Certainly pedestrian -so- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH rune cO, iyyw ROLL CALL INDEX volumes of this magnitude can be accommodated easily on the City's et network, and he asked if the pedestrian traffic would be .ce as much could the traffic still be accommodated on the City treet network. Mr. Farmer affirmatively replied. reference to previous statements by Commissioner Gifford and Edmonton, Mr. Farmer explained that it is customary to talk bout gaps in one direction only. When the figure of 10.7 seconds s used it is only one direction. The California Law states that nce a pedestrian is in a crosswalk that the motorist shall yield, d that is true generally. Mr. Farmer further explained the orementioned statements, and he concluded that the gaps would . e adequate with the traffic volume and would allow the edestrian to get to at least the middle of the street and generally cross the street. In response to questions posed by Commissioner ifford with respect to the trip generation, Mr. Farmer explained at the trip generation and pedestrian generation was based on dual sales at the West Coast Highway McDonald's take -out . estaurant. He said that data was taken from the McDonald's ocated on West Coast Highway, Santa Monica, and their rporate facility. r. DePerine reappeared before the Planning Commission to ddress the Traffic Study. He said that no traffic study was taken A the 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (southbound) tersection, and the concern is the interruption of traffic in an rea where people are generating trips around the block to look or parking spaces, and people turning on 28th Street westbound owards the bay. The problem is the short queue, and any one utomobile backed up on the southbound lane of Newport oulevard, and an employee waving people around 28th Street. e explained how there could be traffic congestion on 28th Street. e stated that the summer calculation on the 60/40 split where edestrian are predicted to come from other parts of the City as pposed from the beach area, that the projections should be 25 ercent from the business areas and 75 percent of the traffic owing from all of the beach areas and that was not included in e Traffic Study. He stated that the concerns are pedestrian . -51- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 23, 1994 ROLL CALL MEX safety and how much the traffic would be interrupted on Newport Boulevard. He addressed the issue that McDonald's did not provide a written litter plan to the City. Commissioner Pomeroy asked Mr. Farmer if the pedestrian traffic would be four times as great to the restaurant during the lunch hour would the circulation system be able to handle the traffic? Mr. Farmer replied that the projections during summer noon period which would be the worse condition is 51 pedestrians. The distribution of approximately 150 pedestrians approaching McDonald's from the beach area at the 28th Street and West Balboa Boulevard intersection only would be a figure that would . be significant; however, 75 pedestrians would be a concern but the street would be able to accommodate the figure. Mr. Farmer clarified his statement by commenting that this presumes that all of the traffic crosses West Balboa Boulevard at one crosswalk at 28th Street and no traffic goes down Newport Boulevard or the . other side of West Balboa Boulevard. Commissioner Edwards stated that there is a law of diminishing return. Mr. Farmer pointed out that the proposed seating area of the take -out restaurant is approximately 400 square feet, and there reaches a point where it would not be feasible to serve a certain ount of people. He said that the answer to four times the pedestrian traffic is somewhat academic. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy with respect to a traffic signal, Mr. Farmer replied that a traffic signal would greatly assist the pedestrians; however, there are traffic signal warrants that have to be met. Traffic signal warrants are minomum conditions that must be met before a traffic signal should be considered, and if a traffic signal would be warranted on he basis of pedestrians, then the pedestrian volumes are not warranted. Several of the restaurants that were mentioned during e public hearing were also contacted by the Traffic Consultants d staff, and the restaurants did not have specific information to give to the consultants or staff. -52- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T une 23 1 994 , ROLL CALL INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner DiSano stated that the Planning Commission was asked by many of the residents to not consider the take -out restaurant when the use permit was presented to the Planning Commission at the April 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting, and if the Planning Commission would approve the restaurant that the Commission consider many issues. The applicant, with the exception of the written litter program, responded to every one of the issues that was raised. One of the issues that was not brought up sufficiently to oppose the restaurant is the issue of the "Island ", and he asked if there was ever any condition at this point or in the foreseeable future as to eminent domain and removing the "Island" from the City, and it does not appear now or in the immediate future that it is in the plans for the City. One of the things that the Planning Commission has to consider is not only traffic and . circulation, but the idea of whether in fact, with an anchor unit of the quality of McDonald's, bring revitalization into that area. The Pier Association took a neutral position on McDonald's, but during a previous public hearing the representative said "that we are about economic revitalization, please let us revitalize our area." A property owner previously stated "and this is my biggest concern and I don't think anyone here has satisfied me, and that is, it looks like a mess now." Commissioner DiSano said that to look at the "Island" properties, a bookstore, a flower shop, a lawyer or doctor's office would not be satisfactory because there are many vacancies now and they are not getting anyone to go into them. There has to be a payback and someone that can provide some anchor to that area to revitalize the commercial part of the area, and that is of benefit to the residents not only in the vicinity, although there would be some discomfort, but it is not discomfort that they don't know would not happen because it is a mixed -use area, but it is also business that would be good for the balance of the City. He stated that even though he has concerns he would lean for approval. -53- CoWdISSIONERS �y�o�t�.p'Po�Pos o 1Tff dJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T.,-.e 'Y2 100A June L+ l .77, ROLL CALL WDF.X Commissioner Glover stated that in terms of planning, she would not like to make a decision based on how a piece of property looks at that time, and that is not a good enough reason to develop a site that might not fit into the content of the community. The Cannery Specific Area Plan is committed to low - intensity use, and that is how she voted on it over a period of time. That is the whole premise for Cannery Village, and granted, Cannery Village has not redeveloped as it was hoped, but that when California and Newport Beach come back from the recession, Cannery Village will be there. The Specific Area Plan does speak to low- intensity use there as she interprets it. Commissioner Gifford stated that she was in the middle of the issue. She lives on the Peninsula, and she appreciates the severity of the problems that exist with traffic. In the positive column the fact is, the area does need revitalization. If there. would be no traffic it would be of some kind of ultimate benefit, but the price . for that would be that the City would look like the site does now. Having a corporation with a strong economic backing and with a good record, a corporation that will be in business at the end of the summer as well as the beginning of the summer, a corporation that has proven to be a good corporate citizen, is all very advantageous. In the negative column, there were all of the issues about the loud speaker ordering, the two 25 foot high signs, the design of the restaurant in relation to the community surrounding it; however, those issues were addressed and what has been left in the negative column are the serious concerns about the congestion at the site, about the auto congestion and about the pedestrian crossing and risk. She concluded that the issues on the positive side are factual, and the issues that are left on the negative side are speculative, and she has a concern that with the issues that are speculative, it is a tendency to imagine the very worst. She reflected on the fact that if she had had to vote on the McDonald's project as it exists on West Coast Highway that she would have voted "no" because in her opinion, she would have said that it can't work inasmuch as there is too much high speed traffic o possibly make those quick turns or to make the left -hand turns; however, it does work. She was not pleased that McDonald's offer • -54- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH J YIAY W, 1JJ' ROLL CALL INDEX of a litter program was not what the Planning Commission requested or what they expected, and the Commission does not feel that they got what they expected. At the very beginning of the meeting the Commission asked, can they memorialize this in case the use permit would be approved and could it be put in as a condition. She had not seen a comprehensive statement of a wider area. It does not speak well that other restaurants are not asked to do this; however, if no one had never mentioned it, it would not have been an issue, but once it is mentioned and once it is promised, it does reflect to some extent on the credibility as to whether or not it is provided. She pointed out the alterations to the conditions concerning the monument sign, the hours, the certified manager on duty, and deleting the logos on the signs. Everyone has said, including McDonald's, that it is a very high volume location, and people are going to know that it is there. She did not think additional lighted signing is needed and there should be consideration given to the number of employee parking spaces. . Commissioner Pomeroy stated that what the Commission asked the applicant to do as a result of public testimony at the April 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting was addressed with the exception of a trash statement which the Commission could 'hammer' out with the extended service all the way to the beach. He determined that after questioning the Traffic Engineer that he was more comfortable with the pedestrian crossing, and the ability to handle traffic. The problem is the mixed -use situation. The commercial uses disturb the residences, and whether it is in Old Corona del Mar it is the same issue. That issue is an issue that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, it is impossible because in many cases those uses are contradictory. From what the Commission asked the applicant to do at the April 7th meeting, including a much improved building appearance, they did everything the Commission asked them to do. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the people who really oppose the project, and everyone shares their concerns, are from the 28th Street Marina; however, there were others who voiced objections. The Commission was trying to address the immediate concerns to -55- d��\�'os�'o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ul,►P►" rune w, iyy% ROLL CALL INDEX the people who reside in the immediate community. McDonald's has done that with the design change, the elevation change, removing the speaker, the signage and he said that he still wanted the signage to be smaller because people are going to know McDonald's is there. No one from Costa Mesa is going to come to the Peninsula for a hamburger, and McDonald's is going to capture the traffic that is there. Some of the concerns that were voiced are very real, i.e. what the project would do to the other retailers in the area. There may be too many hamburger places and maybe a better mix of food uses on the Peninsula would be helpful and the uses could counter -balance each other. It is a blighted area, it is an unique area, it is an "Island ". It is on the edge of Cannery Village; however, he would not consider it to be the 'heart' of Cannery Village. To that extent he could make an exception on the intensity. It is a very responsible corporate entity who could anchor an area that is blighted, and he concluded that he is in favor of the project. . Commissioner Edwards stated that he would not support the project as it presently stands. It is a tough decision because there are good arguments on both sides. It would not just capture the traffic there, it would slow the traffic there, and it would be a major impact on that particular area because of the uniqueness of the property. If it is a blighted area, and if he was a resident of the area, he would not want a fast food establishment there; however, he also opposed a "t- shirt" shop in there. This is not a good plan in this particular area of the Peninsula. Contrary to the opponents, McDonaWs is a responsible party but he could not support the project. Commissioner Glover stated that in 1991 she voted against the other McDonald's take -out restaurant at 2227 Newport Boulevard, and she continues to support the opposition. At that time the City was having problems with Jack -In -The -Box on West Coast Highway and with Carl's Jr. on Newport Boulevard, with youngsters, crowd congestion, etc. and those conditions have improved. Fast foods attract teenagers; however, at this time there is an ordinate need for policing on the Peninsula, and what it does • -56- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June LJ, 1779 ROLL CALL INDEX to the rest of the City is draw policemen to the Peninsula and it takes them away from the rest of the City, and the take -out restaurant would compound it. Chairman Merrill stated that granted, McDonald's has a good operator; however, this is not the West Coast Highway site. The residents make a good argument inasmuch as they are going to be affected, and everyone living beyond McDonald's on the Peninsula is going to be affected by the traffic and it would stack up. It is near the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard that serve the area, and if 28th Street and Newport Boulevard would be backed up it could affect Balboa Boulevard. He stated that he would not support the project. Motion Commissioner Pomeroy made a motion to approve Traffic Study No. 93 and Use Permit No. 3516, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", with the following modifications: Condition No. 5 would be amended to state that the closing time . for the take -out restaurant shall be 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 12 :00 midnight on Friday and Saturday; a condition would be added stating that a trash removal program shall be developed by McDonald's acceptable to the Planning Department. (Discussion followed between the Planning Commission and staff with respect to the area that would be included in the trash pickup. In response to comments by Commissioner Gifford with respect to the aforementioned letter from the City Manager to McDonald's dated February 24, 1994, Ms. Flory stated that the letter was in response to an inquiry by McDonald's and the letter does not have a specific area. The letter only addresses the City's summer youth program which is the entire Peninsula, and it was a suggestion for McDonald's to contribute to the summer program.) Mr. Hewicker suggested that the condition state 26th Street to the south, 30th Street to the north, Lafayette Avenue to the east, and West Ocean Front to the west. Condition No. 4 be amended to state that the proposed monument sign shall be limited to an intermediate height of 4 feet and a maximum height of 5 feet at the peak of the sign. Discussion followed regarding the five special purpose directional signs which contain 6 square • -57- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES rune ia, IYY4 ROLL CALL INDEX feet each and include the golden arches logo, and the Planning Commission concluded that the condition would state that the directional signs would remain without the logos. Commissioner Gifford said that the intensity of the lighting on the signs is an issue. Chairman Merrill suggested that the lights on the signs be turned off when the business closes. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that low- intensity be included under lighting. Commissioner Gifford suggested that a condition be added stating that a Certified Manager periodically walk the parking lot to insure that people are not loitering on the premises, and she assumed that it would be during the hours of operation. Commissioner Ridgeway suggested that Certified Manager be changed to Manager. The Commission agreed that the over -all lighting would be low- intensity on all signs. Ayes * * * Motion was voted on to approve Traffic Study No. 93 and Use Noes * * * Permit No. 3516, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit . "A" as amended. MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Findinesm 1. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 2. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation . measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. 3. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto and that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, it will not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 4. That no cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection . -58- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June Z3, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX with this project. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 6. That the findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the action taken on Traffic Study No. 93 and Use Permit No. 3516. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that the proposed restaurant structure has been designed so as to maintain a minimum finished floor elevation of 6.27 Mean Sea Level. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the . applicant shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that the proposed restaurant has appropriate installation of a grease interceptor with minimum 750 gallon capacity and adequate grease traps as required by the City, the Uniform Plumbing Code, and Orange County Health Department. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, .this requirement has been satisfied. • -59- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June L3, v94 ROLL CALL INDEX B. TRAFFIC STUDY N Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary- modified,' or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on one of the three . study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the second and third intersections indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90. USE PERMIT NO, 3516 indin s: That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding land uses. That the waiver of the take -out restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter walls around the parking areas will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed project includes perimeter landscaping which provides sufficient visual buffer of the on -site parking areas. -60- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That adequate parking is being provided on -site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding beach and residential areas or use the proposed drive - through facility. 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. Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the take -out restaurant facility. 6. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3516 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, • safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That one bathroom for each sex shall be provided and shall be made readily available to patrons of the facility during all hours of operation. Said bathroom facilities shall be accessible to the handicapped. -61- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the development standard pertaining to parking lot walls shall be waived. 4. That no pole identification sign shall be permitted on the site. However, a maximum of three wall identification signs, not exceeding 50 square feet each shall be permitted. One freestanding menu sign shall be permitted and shall not exceed 35 square feet. Special purpose directional signs shall not exceed 6 square feet each and shall not include the golden arches logo. One monument sign shall also be permitted as shown on the site plan. The sign shall be limited to an intermediate height of 4 feet and a maximum height of 5 feet at the peak of the sign. The lighting for the approved signs shall be low- intensity, and shall be turned off when the business closes. 5. The hours of operation shall be limited between 6:00 am. and 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and between 6:00 . a.m. and 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday. 6. That no outdoor loudspeaker or music system shall be permitted. 7. That the proposed parking lot lighting shall be in conformance with the provisions of Section 20.72.090 of the Municipal Code, with the exception that the light standards may exceed a height of 10 feet if necessary. 8. That the service of any alcoholic beverages in the take -out restaurant facility is prohibited. 9. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building and the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 10. That exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. • -62- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 11. That all mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to 55 dBA at the property lines. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining streets. 13. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 14. That a Parcel Map or Lot Line Adjustment as required by the Planning Department to combine the three parcels into one parcel shall be processed and recorded prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. 15. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a Building Permit prior to completion of the public • improvements. 16. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 17. That the intersection of the private drives and Newport Boulevard be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. That the proposed direction signs at the entrances be no higher than 24 inches above sidewalk grade or be relocated behind the sight distance plan line as shown in the City's Sight Distance Standard 110 -L„ 18. That a ten (10) foot wide radius comer cutoff at the corner of Newport Boulevard (northbound) at 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (southbound) at 28th Street be dedicated to the public. 19. That deteriorated curb, gutter and sidewalk be • reconstructed along the Newport Boulevard (southbound) -63- COPAMSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX frontage and the 28th Street frontage. That curb, gutter and full width sidewalk be reconstructed along the Newport Boulevard (northbound) frontage and the unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. That a curb access ramp be constructed at the corner of Newport Boulevard (southbound) and 28th Street per City Standard 181 -L. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 20. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 21. 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. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed • and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Newport Boulevard rights -of -way. 22. That overhead utilities serving the site 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 unreasonable or impractical. 23. That the drive -thru facility shall be operated in such a manner that vehicles will not be allowed to block access driveways. This shall be monitored at all tunes by the applicants' representatives at the site. If back -ups occur, the incoming customers shall be directed to bypass the drive -up facility. If a traffic congestion problem occurs on Newport Boulevard related to the drive -up facility that is not immediately corrected, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council revocation of this Use Permit. -64- COMMISSIONERS QQ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 24. That 28 parking spaces shall be provided on -site for the proposed restaurant in addition to the 8 vehicle stacking lane. 25. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self- parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. Handicapped parking stalls shall be a minimum of 9 feet wide. 26. That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 27. There are a total of eight parking meters on both sides of Newport Boulevard that will be impacted by the proposed project. All parking meter relocations shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall relocate /remove meters pursuant to a Public . Works Encroachment Permit. 28. That the parking area shall be secured after closing hours every night by placing a chain across each of the access driveways. 9. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 0. 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. 1. 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. E -65- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June LS 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX ff32.That a trash removal program shall be developed by the applicant acceptable to the Planning Department. The program shall include provisions for cleaning the on -site parking area every 30 minutes for trash. In addition, the applicant shall be responsible for regularly scheduled pick up in the area surrounding the restaurant bordered by West Ocean Front on the West, Lafayette Avenue on the East, 30th Street on the North, and 26th Street on the South. 33. That a manager shall periodically walk the on -site parking lot to insure that people doe not loiter on the premises during all hours of operation. # i i A. General Plan Amendment No 94 -1 D (Public Hearing) Item N0.8 . Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so GPA 94 -1D as to reflect land use changes proposed as part of the Central LCP 33 Balboa Specific Area Plan; and the acceptance of an environmental document. A802 AND Cont'd to 7/21/94 B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No 33 (Public Hearing) equest to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so as to reflect land use changes proposed as part of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. AND Amendment No. 802 (Public Hearing) Request to amend Districting Map No. 11 so as to redesignate the ea within the proposed boundaries of the Central Balboa Specif- c Area Plan from the RSC -R, RSC -R -Z, MFR, R -2, R -1, and U • -66- COMMISSIONERS �yFOI p 41%0\0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23 1994 !ROLL CALL INDEX Districts to the SP-8 District, and to amend the Zoning Ordinance text to add Chapter 20.65: Specific Plan District (Central Balboa). INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach LOCATION: 300 to 800 blocks of East Balboa Boulevard, 500 to 800 blocks of East Bay Avenue and East Ocean Front; 100 to 300 blocks of Palm Street, Washington Street, and Main Street; east side of the 200 to 300 blocks of Adams Street; and west side of the 100 to 300 blocks of A Street. ZONES: RSC -R, RSC -R -Z, MFR, R -2, R -1, and U APPLICANT: The City of Newport Beach As previously stated, the Planning Commission voted on a motion Wn Yes to continue Item No. 8 to the meeting of July 21, 1994. The MOTION CARRIED. Amendment (Public Headn-4 stem No. Request to consider amending Chapter 20.74, of the Municipal A806 Code, Adult Entertainment Business, so as to amend Sections Approved 20.74.010 and 20.74.020 and repeal Sections 20.74.030, 20.74.040 and 20.74.045. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Chapter 5.96 was reviewed by the City Council for introduction, and it would be considered for public hearing on June 27, 1994. She said that the definitions have been moved to the Business License Division because they are not land -use oriented, and because of the inability to apply a use permit, the City Attorney's Office tried to keep the land use provisions in Chapter 20.74 and put the operational requirements into Title 5 so they can be easily -67- . COMMISSIONERS \ O 1 e 'O�OS, O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 170FRIFYM June 23, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX regulated and changed. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Flory replied that the reasons the changes were made is that it became apparent that there was not a clarity in the Ordinance before, that these types of businesses were not subject to a use permit. Use permits by nature are discretionary and the City cannot have discretion in these matters. If a use permit would be required, it would be necessary to set out all of the requirements for the applicant to comply with, and if the applicant complied with them, the use permit would have to be granted, and the City could not use the general health, safety, and welfare standard with it. In response to comments by Commissioner Ridgeway regarding the use permit process, Ms. Flory explained that if it is First Amendment Entertainment, the Planning Commission is taken out of the equation. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford and Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Flory explained the provisions for parking- Ms. Flory said that the Ordinance organizes provisions that have to be complied with that other cities have used and that have been upheld in the Court. The applicant will be required to have a permit but they will also have to comply with the zoning that is established in Chapter 20.74 and the location restrictions. motion * Motion was made and voted on to recommend to City Council %11 ayes Amendment No. 806. MOTION CARRIED, ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: dd *1 lotion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner DiSano Business all Ayes from the Planning Commission meeting of July 7,1994. MOTION DiSano CARRIED. excused s —68— COMMISSIONERS r \1%��ol�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 23 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX s s a On behalf of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Glover complimented retiring Chairman Merrill on his term as Chairman of the Planning Commission and his eight years of service to the ty . ADJOURNMENT: 12:40 a.m. Ndjourn ANNE K GIFFORD, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION i i -69-