Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1994CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: MINUTES July 21, 1994 R CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * Commissioner Edwards was excused. Absent s s x EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary s s s Chairman Glover welcomed Garold Adams to the Planning Commission. Minutes of July 7. 1994 Minutes of 7/7/9 Notion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the July 7, 1994, Ayes Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain Absent s s s Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non- agenda items. i O�q�A0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 4- RO CALL INDEX Posting of the Agenda: Posting James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning of the Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 15, 1994, in front of City Hall. ss: Request for Continuance: Request to Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicant, Edward Martinez St. Clair, Continue requested that Item No. 4, Use Permit No. 3536, property located at 3333 West Coast Highway, requesting the establishment of a private supper club, be removed from calendar due to unforeseen delays with the project. He further stated that the applicant has requested that Item No. 5, Taco Bell Corp., Use Permit No. 3517 and Traffic Study No. 99, regarding property located at 1400 West . Coast Highway, be continued to the August 4, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. Motion Motion was made and voted on to remove Item No. 4 from the Ayes * * * * * calendar, and to continue Item No. 5 to the August 4, 1994, Absent Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. s s s Use Permit No. 3537 (Public Hearing) Item NO. Request to permit the establishment of pet grooming facility on UP3537 property located in the RSC District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2, Block Y, Tract No. 323, located at 332 Marigold Avenue, on the southeasterly corner of Marigold Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: RSC S -2 °°o c A q0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES .1111V21, 1994 RO CALL INDEX APPLICANT: Timothy S. Pinkerton, Corona del Mar OWNER: T. Clark, Laguna Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Timothy Pinkerton, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams regarding Exhibit "A", Condition No. 7, stating that no animals shall be kept in the facility overnight, Mr. Pinkerton explained that the animal's owner would be notified that the animal would be moved to a kennel or boarding facility overnight if the animal were not picked up by the owner on the day the animal was admitted to the facility. . There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3537 Ayes * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION Absent CARRIED. Fin in 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking is available on -site to accommodate the existing on -site uses, and the proposed facility will not generate any more traffic than a typical retail use. . -3- COMMISSIONERS �ld'np9�AOf O� n0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES t0 CALL WDEX 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3537 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 to the general welfare of the City. CON— D -MONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan. 2. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Section 20.63.045 of the Municipal Code, and no temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the subject business. . 3. That the sale and display of all pet related supplies and other merchandise shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed building and that all animal noise shall be confined to the interior of the building. 4. That air conditioning or other ventilation apparatus shall be installed and operable at all times during business hours. That all exterior doors and windows shall be kept closed during business hours when animals are present so as to limit noise emanating from the establishment. 5. That all trash shall be stored within the building until it is scheduled to be picked up. 6. That the hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., daily. 7. That no animals shall be kept in the facility overnight, unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the City. . -4 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL MEX 8. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the performance of grooming services on the premises. 9. 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 or the City Council may add or modify conditions of approval or deny this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 10. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A General Plan Amendment No 94 -1 (D) (Continued Public Item: 19o.2 Hearing) GPA 94 -1D Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to reflect land use changes proposed as part of the Central LCP 33 Balboa Specific Area Plan; and the acceptance of an A802 cont 'd environmental document. AND to 8/4/94 B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 33 (Continued Public Hearin Request 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 • -5 COPAMSSIONERS \'p°t- po CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL 11,MEX C. Amendment No. 802 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend Districting Map No. 11 so as to redesignate the area within the proposed boundaries of the Central Balboa Specif- ic Area Plan from the RSC -R, RSC -R -Z, MFR, R -2, R -1, and U 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, . RSC RSC MFR, R R U ZONES: -R, -R -Z, -2, -1, and APPLICANT: The City of Newport Beach Patrick Alford, Senior Planner, explained that the General Plan Amendment would redesignate specific properties within the project area and would allocate new floor area and dwelling unit yields. The Local Coastal Plan Amendment will incorporate the general plan revisions into the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Amendment No. 802 will amend the Districting Map to the various zones in the specific area plan and incorporate the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan text into the Zoning Code. The proposed specific area plan is a recommendation of a committee of private citizens who directed the drafting of the plan over a three year period. The wmrnittee consisted of citizens from Peninsula Point, the Central Newport Beach Homeowner's Association, and the Central Balboa Merchants Association. The plan consists of goals, objectives, and policies to guide development in the area. The plan will be used to oversee 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL ItJDEX applications for use permits, site plan review, and public improvement projects that will occur in the area. The land use and development regulations are designed so that the use of property conforms with the goals of the specific area plan. The development regulations include a number of incentives for new development, i.e. floor area ratio and density bonuses are provided for commercial projects to encourage consolidation of existing legal lots to provide unified site design. Properties that are nonconforming due to gross floor area or parking would be permitted to undergo structural alterations or total reconstruction without losing a nonconforming status provided there is no net loss in parking and that all other development regulations are met. There is a provision that allows alternative development regulations to be proposed and approved through the site plan review process. There are provisions incorporated in the specific area plan that are designed to maintain and strengthen the general . pedestrian orientation of the area, i.e. corner setbacks and building replacement requirements that are intended to provide a strong street presence in the area. The public improvement component will oversee the physical redesign of the public infrastructure in the area, i.e. decorative streetscape improvements such as sidewalks with brick pavers and rock salt finish; decorative street fixtures; additional landscaping and street trees; improvements to the Balboa Pier approach; improvements to the Balboa Pier parking lot; and the undergrounding of utilities. The specific area plan includes screens for refuse storage areas; screens for mechanical equipment; a revision of the sign regulations, and revised landscaping standards. Mr. Alford stated that the public improvement component lists all of the possible public improvement projects. He addressed the request for a traffic signal at Washington Street. He explained that the plan does not preclude or require the traffic signal; however, it was included inasmuch as the traffic signal may be necessary and the traffic signal would be listed only if it was required by a revised circulation plan. . -7 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX The residential interior court proposed for the SP(R -2) properties in the area was suggested to provide more air and light for the narrow lots in the area; however, the requirement could be replaced with those existing R -2 District regulations, if desired. Mr. Alford addressed the properties that would be converted from commercial zoning to residential zoning. He said that the committee concluded that the areas were marginal from a commercial standpoint and that residential would be more desirable than commercial. It is possible that commercial zoning could be retained on the properties and not interfere with the basic goals of the plan. In response to a question posed by Chairman Glover, Mr. Alford said that the owners of the properties that are proposed to be changed from RSC to SP -8 (R -2) Two Family Residential were notified by public notice. . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Alford replied that the change from RSC to SP -8 (R -2) Two Family Residential involved properties on the edge of the commercial area, and it was perceived by the committee that residential development on the property would be approved by the property owners. If the properties would remain as commercial properties the basic concept of the plan would remain. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding'Suilding Materials ", Mr. Alford replied that glass block would not be precluded; however, it would go against the intent of the requirement since the idea was to have highly visible shop space at the ground level to enhance the pedestrian environment in the area. In reference to the recommendation that "Not more than forty percent of any exterior building elevation above the first floor shall consist of glass or a similar material ", Mr. Alford replied that the glass block would contribute to the forty percent. The basic intent was to provide more of a traditional exterior, and to avoid glass boxes in the area. The Committee wanted a development exterior that was fairly common to central business . 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 1. 1 GOA R CALL INDEX districts. Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that glass block was frequently used in the 1920's and 1930's, and it has come back in recent years. Glass block provides natural light, security, and pricey. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams regarding the recommendation concerning signs, Mr. Alford explained that the proposed signs would be a reduction of dimensions that are allowed under the Sign Ordinance, but a substantial number of signs would be allowed under the proposed plan. Mr. Alford stated that the suggested flash brick pavers that would be installed in Central Balboa would be similar to those used in McFadden Square. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford regarding neon signs, Mr. Alford stated that the Committee considered the use of materials; however, since no architectural style or theme was imposed on the area there is no provision that would prohibit the use of neon lighting. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams regarding decorative materials, Mr. Alford replied that the reason specific materials were listed was to give the general sense of cost and the scope of the improvements. In response to questions posed by Chairman Glover regarding "Non- Conforming Signs ", Mr. Alford explained that the provision references the existing Sign Code and nonconforming signs city- wide. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the only time it is necessary to remove a sign is when a type of business may change. Chairman Glover addressed "Balboa Pier Parking Lot Improvements" and restricting Main Street to bus, local business patron, and service vehicle traffic. Mr. Alford stated that the statement refers to the possibility of limiting traffic on to Main Street. He said that what has been proposed is that Main Street south of Balboa Boulevard would be limited to public transit and service vehicles only. He said that the traffic would be redirected to other exits. Chairman Glover addressed the attached resolution . -9- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX stating that "Retail and Service Commercial areas are also permitted FAR and density bonuses when existing legal lots are consolidated to provide unified site design. ", and she asked if density bonuses are given when there is a mixed -use or when crossing existing legal lots. Mr. Alford explained that density bonuses would be given for mixed use projects, and not all commercial projects that would be given the FAR bonus would have a density bonus. Only a mixed -use project would need a density bonus. A FAR bonus would be given if there would be a straight commercial project Commissioner Gifford stated that the component that addresses public improvements is. a combination of public works and privately funded enhancement to the public works and that would only be implemented if an Assessment District is formed. Mr. Alford stated that the plan does not address funding mechanisms inasmuch as the committee did not want to lock the City into a particular approach on providing funds, and the Committee wanted to keep the options open. However, if an Assessment District would be appropriate so as to proceed with the public improvements it would be necessary to follow a separate process, and there would be additional notification and the public would be able to address their concerns regarding the formation of an Assessment District. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that in the specific area plan for the McFadden Square area, the improvements were done jointly as a public and Assessment District process, and the Assessment District paid for approximately two -thirds of the improvements. The public area in front of Newport Pier was considered a public area and that portion was considered for public funding; however, the sidewalks in front of the businesses were considered to be private responsibilities, and the general maintenance of the streets within the area were considered to be public responsibility. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Webb explained the Assessment District process, the hiring of an Assessment Engineer to determine the over -all areas of benefit, and the preparation of a map to indicate the entire area of the . -10- COMMISSIONERS PnCln��A. 9 pL 9 iygr%r /lD WV11IF1DA1?T U AOT—T MINUTES July Z1, 1994 RO CALL INDEX improvements that would be included and funded. He further explained the determinations of private lots and public rights -of- way, the necessity to have 60 percent of the property owners affected by the Assessment District to sign a petition in support of it, and the public hearing process prior to construction. Mr. Webb further replied that based on the City's budgetary constraints during the past few years that the only the way the improvements will occur in Central Balboa is through an Assessment District project with the major portion being privately funded. Commissioner Gifford stated that there is no linkage in adopting the specific area plan which would implement the zoning changes, and any requirement that an Assessment District would be initiated. She said that the zoning changes would go into affect and it is possible that not everyone within the boundaries of the specific area plan would be affected by the Assessment District. Mr. Alford replied that the assessment would be based on the amount of benefit that the property owner would receive. The bulk of the public improvements are oriented toward the commercial properties, and if an Assessment District would be implemented that it would be those properties that would be assessed to pay for the improvements. Chairman Glover and Mr. Alford discussed 'spot zoning' in the areas that are located on the boundary between the commercial and residential properties. In response to questions posed by Chairman Glover regarding "plan to plan" analysis and "ground to plan" analysis, Mr. Alford explained that the staff report considers a 'Worse case scenario" of the maximum potential development yield. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. Dennis Kidd, 22874 Pico Street, Grand Terrace, property owner of 417 and 419 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he opposed the proposed Central Balboa Specific Area Plan because his property is being "downzoned" from commercial to R -2. In response to a question -11- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES _. R CALL INDEX posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Kidd stated that he would support the plan if the zoning on his property did not change. Mr. Dennis Wood, 407 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wood expressed his concerns regarding the proposed zone change on his property inasmuch as the existing RSC -R District would provide flexibility on his property. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway and Commissioner Adams, Mr. Wood replied that he intends to retrofit the building and to restore it to its original condition. Mr. W. R. Dildine, P. O. Box 1195, Lompoc, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that he has been involved in the 300 block of East Balboa Boulevard and Cypress Street since 1964 -65 when he constructed 205 Cypress Street, 320, 324, 328, 330 East Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Dildine stated that it was the opinion of many business people that the specific area plan would stop at Adams Street, and the plan would not extend into the 300 and 400 blocks of East Balboa Boulevard. He expressed concerns that there are incentives for commercial development; however, there are no incentives for the property owners in the 300 and 400 blocks and they are not addressed in the improvements. Additional concerns are the courtyard inasmuch as he would not be able to construct a building on a 30 foot wide lot with a window 10 feet back from the property line, and he expressed concern regarding the required enclosed storage. Mr. Alford explained that the boundaries for the Central Balboa Spec Area Plan were designated in 1973, and the 'panhandle' section was included because commercial properties and the telephone building existed in the 300 and 400 blocks. He explained that one of the reasons that Block "S" was recommended to be removed from commercial was because it did fall out of the main core commercial area and the idea was to keep it consolidated. He indicated that at one point the Committee considered the possibility of excluding the 'panhandle' portion from the specific area plan entirely. The public improvements terminate at Adams Street; however, if there is no benefit from the improvement then the property owners -12- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX would not be assessed. Mr. Dildine stated that the property owners would be willing to be a part of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan if they received some benefit. Mr. Dildine submitted photographs and explained why he opposes neon signs in the area. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Dildine stated that he was not being affected by the zone change. Mr. Spence Henry, 411 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed R -2 zoning; however, he expressed a concern regarding the window restrictions. Mr. Curtis Herberts, 2290 Channel Road, property owner of 700 and 701 Edgewater Place and Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Herberts addressed the unattractive wires that exist over Balboa Boulevard, and the public sidewalks that need to be replaced and funded by the City. Mr. Herberts stated that he would be willing to pay his share of decorative sidewalks over the cost of sidewalk that is not decorated. He supported the installation of light posts but he opposed the green light posts that were installed on Balboa Peninsula. The property owners that are involved should have the opportunity to approve or oppose the decorative improvements. There is no reason to change the zoning, and the third traffic light would delay the traffic flow. In response to comments by Commissioner Gifford regarding the proposed public improvements and the development of a logo to represent the Central Balboa area, Mr. Webb replied that in McFadden Square the City determined which sections of sidewalk were in need of replacement and the City included the sections as part of the public component. Mr. Alford stated that the decorative improvements and logo would be addressed during the public hearing and Assessment District process. Mr. Hewicker replied that in the process of developing types of improvements and variations that the City would be seeking out the input from the property owners and the merchants. The City would seek some type of a public consensus as to the type and the kind of public improvement that would go into the right -of -way before the property owners would pay for the improvement. Mr. Herberts • -13- 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES h, 11 100A R CALL INDEX addressed his opposition to the building restrictions that the specific area plan would impose on the area. Chairman Glover stated that the intent is to improve the area through the changes. Mr. Herberts concurred that the sidewalks need to be replaced, the streets need to be repaved, the wires need to he replaced and undergrounded, the lampposts need to be upgraded, and the parking lot on the ocean front needs to be upgraded with landscaping. Mr. Webb stated that if more than 50 percent of the property owners disagree with what is being paid for or proposed to be constructed with the Assessment District then the Assessment District would fail. Mr. Richard Vogel, 408. Westminster, owner of the previous Balboa Hardware building located at the comer of East Balboa Boulevard and Main Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to support the proposed specific area plan inasmuch as it would be good for the area. He agreed that the sidewalks and overhead wires need to be upgraded, and he pointed out that he would pay for the decorative sidewalk but not the total construction. He expressed a concern that the rock salt finish on the sidewalks would be difficult to clean, and he questioned if the zone change would affect his building. Mr. Alford stated that the plan has a number of provisions that allow flexibility in the nonconforming structures. There is also a provision that allows the Planning Director, based on certain findings, to consider the intensity of specific uses. In response to questions posed by Chairman Glover, Mr. Alford replied that there would be on -going capital improvement projects in the area, and the Assessment District or another mechanism would be considered if there would be a need above basic improvements. Mr. Vogel recommended that Balboa Boulevard be made more pedestrian friendly inasmuch as the pedestrians are constantly jaywalking against the red light. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Vogel stated that numerous people are interested in leasing the site of the previous hardware store, and the list consists of people who have businesses in the immediate area. He said that the interested businesses are not service - oriented. Commissioner DiSano stated that the City is attempting to revitalize the "village" . -14- COMMISSIONERS 0 �" s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 1111y 11 1994 R CALL INDEX to where there would be business support from the locals, and a sufficient attraction from the tourists. Mr. Vogel stated that one business that would attract a good clientele would be more restaurants inasmuch as the public would come to the restaurants and walk around the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Vogel said that the area could become more pedestrian friendly by adjusting the traffic signals to allow more time for the pedestrians to cross Balboa Boulevard. Mrs. Virginia Herberts, 2290 Channel Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. She said that they are members of the Balboa Merchants Association, and the Balboa Peninsula Point Association. She supports the beautification program as proposed in the specific area plan. The suggested traffic signal at Washington Street would not be practical inasmuch as it would further impact the flow of traffic on Balboa Peninsula; the possible removing of parking on Main Street and in front of the Post Office would not be resident serving; and to retain the canopy of trees on Main Street. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway regarding "Main Street Landscaping Improvements ", Mr. Alford replied that it is possible that the trees could become diseased and it would be necessary to install new street trees on Main Street, and it was not intended to make a wholesale removal of existing trees and planting new trees. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the trees should remain on Main Street. Commissioner Gifford said that the City's existing policy is to remove diseased trees; however, she said that the language in 20.65.080 (A) 4. could be modified to state Install additional street trees on the east and west sides of the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Main Street where driveway relocation or other changes may create openings.... Mrs. Herberts and Commissioner Gifford discussed the possibility of a driveway relocation on Main Street, and Mrs. Herberts approved of the modification as proposed. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. . I -15- COMMISSIONERS Nits U�rS\1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX Mr. Tom Hyams, President of Central Newport Beach Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that he participated on the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee for three years, and two years before that he participated in the Cannery Village - McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. He discussed the two Assessment Districts that occurred in the Cannery Village- McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, and the fact that the City took responsibility for about one- third of the assessment amount for the purpose of paying for public improvements. Mr. Hyams concluded that the concerns that have been addressed during the public testimony can be addressable with an appropriate structuring of the Assessment District. In response to a clarification posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Hyams stated that he supports the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan but the City should take an active role or participation in the future assessment, and the whole burden should not be put on the property owners and business people. . Mr. Chan Lefebvre, 2112 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission, and a member of the AdHoc Committee representing the Balboa Peninsula Point Association. He stated that the ultimate revitalization of Balboa will require a shift in emphasis from a visitor - serving commercial core to a majority of businesses that are oriented towards year around residents, because very few businesses can operate on a few months of business. He addressed the following issues: the residents oppose a third traffic signal; the future use of the Wells Fargo Bank site located at the comer of Balboa Boulevard and Palm Street; and that language be inserted to give the residents an assurance that if the projected 6 percent increase in traffic is exceeded at the buildout of the specific area plan that the City will take strong mitigation measures. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the majority of the 6 percent increase in traffic would come primarily from the increase in dwelling units that are improved, and the increase in the amount of commercial space. Discussion ensued between Mr. Lefebvre, Commissioner Pomeroy, Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Hewicker, . -16- COMMISSIONERS l+i7'V AF rjv11T113nU1r RFAf`A MINUTES \,+ -Y Viii VA AS" VV Vi \i YYiiYii July 11 1994 R CALL INDEX and Mr. Alford regarding the proposed uses that could cause an increase in traffic, and if the increase in the number of parking spaces in the Balboa Pier Parking Lot would have an affect on the traffic. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Webb replied that Balboa Boulevard is a public street and it is difficult for the City to regulate who uses the public street. Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, discussed the safety net factor, and she concluded that there needs to be some reliance on the traffic numbers. Commissioner Adams stated that the Traffic Study considered the relative impact of the change in zoning, and it amounts to a potential. additional 117 dwelling units and 1,372 square feet of retail, which the 6 percent projected increase in traffic is attributable. It would not appear that the proposed zoning would be too far off from the 6 percent inasmuch as there could only be so much error that could be attributable to the . relative marginal net increase in land use. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that it is difficult to project how the RSC zoning is going to tenant mix. In response to comments by Mr. Lefebvre and Commissioner Ridgeway regarding proposed restaurant uses and the traffic, Mr. Hewicker stated that there are certain types of uses such as restaurants that generate a lot of traffic, and requiring a use permit for a restaurant is one way of trying to gauge where the City is going in terms of allowing higher intensity commercial uses into the area. There are residential zoned properties where the property owners have expressed concerns regarding the change from commercial to residential, and if the commercial properties were to remain and the residential use was torn down and replaced with a retail use on the property the new commercial use would generate more traffic than a residential use on the same piece of ground. Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the General Plan has provisions that address the higher traffic- generated land uses, such as restaurants. The provisions of the General Plan are not being disturbed by the proposed specific area plan. Within the regulations, the higher traffic- generated land uses are required to -17- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES lidir ?1, 100A R CALL INDEX comply with a much lower floor area ratio than the .5 or the enhanced floor areas contained in the specific area plan. The General Plan has a built -in fail safe for the construction of new restaurants within every district of the City, not just Central Balboa where the higher traffic- generated land uses are limited further to a floor area ratio of .3. The proposed increased traffic anticipated in the specific area plan by far the largest part is due to a projection of an increase in residential uses within the commercial district. If the residential units do arrive, additional residents in commercial areas tend to cause the City to be more critical of uses such as restaurants which tend to create more traffic, more problems, and more disturbances within the general commercial district. The.projections within the Traffic Study are a worse case scenario. Mrs. Dana Pettit, President of the Balboa Merchants Association, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the . membership. She stated that the Association supports the proposed specific area plan, and they are encouraging the adoption of the plan so the merchants can proceed with needed changes in downtown Balboa and to provide a year around business district. The merchants are concerned with the suggested traffic signal at Washington Street inasmuch as it would not help their situation. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Alford explained that the possibility of a third traffic signal is attributable to a redirection of traffic out of the Balboa Pier parking lot. The AdHoc Committee considered numerous circulation plans, and the conclusion was that the system with its faults operates and works now, and the Committee did not want to go on record of endorsing or rejecting any major changes. Commissioner Adams commented that if the traffic signal would be removed from the specific area plan it would not preclude the inclusion of a traffic signal if in the future the circulation warranted the signal. Mr. Alford commented that if there were to be an accurate public improvement plan that there is the possibility that there may be a need for a third traffic signal, and the proposed language in Section 20.65.090 (A) 7, Washington Street Traffic Signal, states: Install a new traffic signal at the . -18- COMMSSIONERS Nq CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Washington Street, if nmuihend by revised circulation plarG Mr. Adams stated that if Main Street had reduced access and was not linked to the parking lot that the new primary egress would be at Washington Street, and there would be less activity at the existing traffic signal on Main Street. Mr. Alford concurred with the foregoing statement. Mr. Wayne Zippi, 420 East Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Zippi suggested that Main Street and Bay Avenue be a 'pedestrian only' area on summer weekends inasmuch as the traffic herds the visitors and does not allow the visitors to stop and shop Balboa. Mr. Zippi expressed his concern regarding the traffic circulation on East Bay Avenue and Adams Street, and he suggested that when the traffic is re- routed that the residential area be considered. Mr. Alford stated that no traffic re- routing is mandate by the spec area plan. Commissioner Gifford stated that a goal of the Specific Area Plan is to separate . the commercial and residential traffic, and she said that there would be an opportunity if there would be special landscaping or paving at Adams Street indicating that the area is at the end of the . commercial district. Mr. Alford stated that a goal has been to direct the traffic to the proper destination points as quickly as possible to allow the residents to travel through the area to the end of the Peninsula. He said that there is language in the specific area plan that addresses proper signage and directional mechanisms to help facilitate the flow of traffic by indicating the proper routes for residents and visitors. Commissioner Ridgeway and Mr. Alford discussed the feasibility of the re- routing of traffic. Mr. Frank Marshall, 810 West Bay Avenue and an office at 510 West Balboa Boulevard, property owner of 505 and 507 East Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Marshall stated that the intent is to "downzone" 505 and not 507 East Bay Avenue; however, he requested that the properties remain zoned at RSC -R. He supported the proposed undergrounding of utilities. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Marshall stated that he purchased the property with the intent of converting a portion of the property to commercial use. . -19- COMMISSIONERS ffikk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R CALL INDEX Mr. Rick Hoeft, 811 East Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to empress his support of the Specific Area Plan. He stated that a pedestrian corridor between the ocean and the bay would upgrade the area, and he suggested that the traffic be restricted on Main Street. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Alford explained the provisions in the specific area plan that encourage the pedestrians to meander through the business district. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the area cannot be pedestrian friendly until the conflict between the automobiles and the people is resolved, and he did not see the specific area plan doing that. Mr. Alford stated that by keeping the traffic flowing through the area, the people would be able to cross the major circulation routes, and he explained the provisions in the specific area plan that would minimize the conflict. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Webb stated that to restrict traffic from turning right off of Main Street to Balboa Boulevard would be difficult because Peninsula Point residents may want to use the Balboa Pier Parking Lot. Mr. . Webb stated that the suggestion is a detail that should be considered as a traffic handling plan and not as a part of the specific area plan. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that he had considered a no right turn off of Main Street so as to create a situation that would allow the pedestrians to cross Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Alford stated an improvement that has been proposed is to clearly show the beginning and end of the commercial district. The idea is that the people would know the boundaries and they would be less likely to enter the residential areas. Ms. Temple stated that the committee was interested in strengthening the pedestrian orientation of Main Street because it already has a strong pedestrian use. Some of the reorganization of the parking lot in order to divert traffic off of that segment of Main Street would have a peripheral affect of allowing a little bit more free flow for the pedestrian on Main Street. Mr. Robert Wells, 328 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission to express support of the specific area plan; however, he had concerns regarding the restrictions regarding the interior court and windows. -20- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX Mr. Jim Petrilli, 2501 Bamboo Street, property owner of 504 East Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the petition that was signed by five residents residing in the 500 block of East Ocean Front, and his letter dated June 23, 1994, that were previously distributed to the Planning Commission. He stated that the concerns are the court setback; the 109 additional parking spaces in the Balboa Pier Parking Lot would be for the commercial users in the redevelopment district; and the reduction of the landscaping in the parking lot. He said that as a trade -off of the additional parking spaces that the residents request a landscape buffer zone between Palm Street and Adams Street; that there be an increase in the height limit from the current zoning to enhance their views and it would obstruct the automobiles in the parking lot; that there be an easing of the parking requirements in the parking lot for the residents; and that the zoning be changed from R -2 to R -3 District so as to attract smaller units that would be more dense. He said that the . aforementioned suggestions would make the area more desirable for future tenants. Mr. Petrilli and Commissioner Pomeroy discussed the foregoing comments requesting the increased height limit. Mr. Hewicker stated that the R -2 District allows two units regardless of the size of the lot, and the R -3 District is based on the square footage of the property, still only two units would be allowed. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Gifford made the following statements in response to public testimony: the 10 foot setback on courts where a window would be required would be difficult on a 27 foot lot and she was in favor of the existing setback standards; that the tree canopy remain on Main Street; to eliminate neon may anticipate problems when none may occur and it. may be appropriate to require that neon signs be turned off at a specific hour; that there be no reduction of landscape in the Balboa Pier Parking Lot and that a minimum 3 foot wide landscape border be installed between the boardwalk and the edge of the parking lot that would come up to . -21- COMMISSIONERS 'iNe+1WMW\\\1QZ5x CI TY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES \r Cti \v \ R CALL INDEX a height that would provide screening from headlights going into the residences. She asked if it was intended that trash enclosures be required in R -2 properties. Mr. Alford replied that all refuse areas would have to be screened, and she said that it would be reasonable not to discriminate against the SP -8 (R -2) properties by requiring that they have trash enclosures when it is not required in R -2 properties in other areas of the City. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the basic concept and principles can be done without the specific downzoning that was requested by the property owners during public testimony. He concurred with Commissioner Gifford's previous statement and the issues that she addressed. Commissioner Adams stated that downzone is an integral part of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan, and he asked if the parcels on Adams Street would be considered in addition to the parcels in . the 400 Block of East Balboa Boulevard. Chairman Glover agreed that the zone change should be more specific, and that she has concerns regarding downzoning. Commissioner Ridgeway opined that the people that objected with the zone change appeared before the Planning Commission during the public hearing, and he indicated that he would have no problem accommodating their requests. Commissioner DiSano agreed, and he pointed out that it would not be considered spot zoning if the properties would be reviewed individually. Ms. Temple referred to 505 and 507 East Bay Avenue, and she said that the properties are immediately contiguous to a commercial district, and switching that line would be no problem. In reference to the 400 Block of East Balboa Boulevard, she stated that the entire 400 block would have to be considered inasmuch as it is not contiguous to a commercial district, and not just individual parcels within the 400 block. Commissioner Ridgeway and Mr. Hewicker discussed the City's policy regarding spot zoning. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and staff regarding the zoning in the 400 block. Commissioner Adams . -22- lL9fpF\ �� p CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX stated that the 'panhandle' in the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan was established many years ago when the commercial area was extended to those parcels; however, if the area would be zone changed to residential he questioned why the 'panhandle' would still need to be in the specific area plan. Mr. Hewicker stated that it could be a good solution to amend the General Plan to change the boundary of the specific area plan and to rezone the properties to a residential zoning similar to the other residential areas beyond the specific area plan. Commissioner Gifford stated that the telephone property could remain GEIF District, and the R -2 District could be a part of the General Plan Amendment and the boundaries could be changed to eliminate the'panhandle' from the specific area plan. The public hearing was reopened in connection with this item, and Mr. Spence Henry, 411 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Henry stated that he did not object . to commercial parcels in the 400 block; however, he requested that his property be rezoned from RSC to R -2 (SP -8). The public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Hewicker replied that a duplex cannot be built in a RSC zone because it allows only Retail, Service, Commercial uses and not residential. Mr. Hewicker stated that if the property would be zoned RSC -R that the property could be mixed -use, i.e. ground floor commercial and residential above. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the entire 400 block is zoned RSC, but the majority of the structures are used residentially. Mr. Hewicker stated that there was a time when the City allowed residential uses to go into commercial zoning districts with a use permit. Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that it is an excellent opportunity to spot zone a piece of property because there is an inconsistency in the 400 block because of problems that have occurred in the past. -23- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Commissioner Gifford stated that she would like to know which properties that are presently requesting commercial zoning have in the past applied for use permits to be residential. Motion * Motion was made to continue General Plan Amendment No. 94- 1D, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 33, and Amendment No. 802 to the Planning Commission meeting of August 4, 1994. The Planning Commission considered the following items for the staff to bring back to the Planning Commission: omit the court yard language for the R -2 zone; alter the language regarding public improvements on Main Street and the program does not involve the elimination of existing trees, reinforcing that they are to be maintained and to be added to if appropriate, elimination of existing trees only on the basis of public safety or disease conditions; establish time limits regarding internally lit signs (the Planning Commission voted not to address the issue); provision . regarding no net reduction in landscaping within the beach side parking lot (Commissioner Adams expressed a concern that a minor change in the landscaping could significantly reduce needed parking spaces and Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that staff review the issue and come back to the Commission with an indication of the impact); three foot landscape border between the parking lot and the boardwalk with a height limit intended to screen automobile lights (Commissioner Gifford stated that her intent was a three foot wide hedge and Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the hedge be high enough to reduce the glare from headlights but not to impede views from the residences across the boardwalk); not to require trash enclosures in the R -2 District; a presentation concerning the aforementioned third traffic signal considered for the intersection of Main Street and Washington Street; and what would trigger a re- examination of the circulation plan, the change in the parking lot, and the change in access. The Planning Commission and staff discussed the information that would be brought back to the Commission concerning the land use patterns in the area. . -24- COMMISSIONERS q�AQf fA 'A0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX Ayes Absent * Motion was voted on to continue General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1 D, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 33, and Amendment No. 802 to the August 4, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. A. General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(A) (Continued Public stem No. Hearin GPA 94 -1; Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating property at the westerly comer of Newport Center Drive and Granville Drive from "Multi Family Residential" to "Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial" uses and (13561 LCP 34 l 1 A805 [issaf to allow 5,000 square feet of office development. Approved . INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND B. 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 . -25- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX 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 corner of Newport Center Drive and Granville Drive from the U District to the APF [5,000sfj 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 James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the up -dated petition signed by the people supporting the project was submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bill Ficker, architect for the conversion of the Granville Apartments to condominiums, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ficker commented that the Final Tract Map was previously filed and recorded. Mr. Ficker addressed a previous petition that was signed by approximately 25 people expressing their opposition concerning the proposed office building on the site. Mr. Ficker stated that in response to the petition, the building was designed and a site plan was submitted to allow the tenants in the Granville Apartments to go -26 COMMISSIONERS ��41`���AO� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX review the scale and character of the project that would go on the property. Subsequently, the majority of the people are now in support of the project. Mr. Ficker pointed out that the project would cover approximately 13.6 percent of the property to be utilized for office development. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve General Plan Ayes * * Amendment No. 94 -1(A) [Resolution No. 13561, Local Coastal Absent * Program Amendment No. 34 [Resolution No. 13561, and Amendment No. 805 [Resolution No. 1358], as proposed in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94 -1(A): . Adopt Resolution No. 1356 (attached) recommending to the City Council the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(A), amending the Iand Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to redesignate property located at the westerly corner of Newport Center Drive and Granville Drive from "Multi Family Residential" to "Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial" uses and to allow 5,000 square feet of office development. B. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 34: Adopt Resolution No 1357 (attached) recommending to the City Council the adoption of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 34, amending the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program so as to redesignate property located at the westerly corner of Newport Center Drive and Granville Drive from "Multi Family Residential" to "Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial" uses and to allow 5,000 square feet of office development. . -27- 9�nYOYr.Ww" 0 CIT Y OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES i RO CALL INDEX C. AMENDMENT NO, 805: Adopt Resolution No. 1358 (attached) recommending to the City Council the approval of Amendment No. 805, amending 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 [5,000sff, 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. Use Permit No. 3536 (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to permit the establishment of a private supper club with UP3536 dancing, pre - recorded music, on -sale alcoholic beverages and outdoor dining and drinking on property located in the "Recreation and Marine Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Removed from Calendar Specific Area Plan. The proposal also includes a request to approve an off -site parking agreement for a portion of the required off - street parking spaces on commercial property located at 206 Riverside Avenue; and the approval of a full time valet parking service for the proposed development. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 170, Block 2, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3333 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile (Restaurant Site); and Parcel 1, Parcel Map 74/22 (Resubdivision No. 450), located at 204 -206 Riverside Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Riverside Avenue, between Avon Street and Cliff Drive (Off - Site Parking Lot). . -28- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 11, 1994 R CALL -hay INDEX ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Edward Martinez St. Clair, Newport. Beach OWNER: Haseko Inc, Los Angeles James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be removed from calendar due to unforeseen delays with the project. Motion Ayes * * * Motion was made and voted on to remove Use Permit No. 3536 from calendar. MOTION CARRIED. Absent s z s A. Use Permit No. 3517 (Public Hearing) item No.s . Request to permit the establishment of a 24 hour Taco Bell drive - UP3517 through, take -out restaurant facility, with indoor and outdoor ancillary seating, on property located in the RSC -H District. The cont -d to 8/4/94 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 two free standing pole or ground signs where the Sign Code permits only one free standing sign per building site; and an exception to the Sign Code so as to allow a restaurant logo on the special purpose directional signs, whereas the Sign Code prohibits such logos on directional signs; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Traffic Study No. 99 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study for a proposed 24 hour Taco Bell drive- through and take -out restaurant facility. LOCATION: Lots 48 through 53 and a portion of Lot 54, Tract No. 1210, located at 1400 West Coast . -29- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, across from the Balboa Bay Club. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: Taco Bell Corp., Irvine OWNERS: Levon and Zarouhi Gugasian, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that Item No. 5 be continued to the August 4, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3517 Ayes * * and Traffic Study No. 99 to the Planning Commission meeting of Absent * August 4, 1994. MOTION CARRIED. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to consider Agenda Item No. 6 Ayes * * * * * * after 11:00 p.m. per the policy that was set forth in the Planning Absent Commission Rules of Procedure. MOTION CARRIED. A. General Plan Amendment No. 87 -1(B) (Public Hearing) Item No.6 GPA 87 -1B Request to amend the Noise Element of the General Plan so as to conduct a comprehensive update of technical and policy information necessary to reflect the changes in community noise A807 environment and noise - related issues which have occurred since its original adoption. AND . -30- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T111u,71 100A RO CALL INDEX B. Amendment No. 807 (Public Hearing) Request to amend Sections 20.01.070 (C), 20.01.070 (D), 20.10.035, 20.10.045, and 20.70.060 of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to revise current noise control regulations to be consistent with those contained in the proposed Community Noise and Vibration Control Ordinance. The proposed amendment also requests to amend the Municipal Code so as to add Chapter 10.26: Community Noise and Vibration Control and to revise Sections of Chapters 6.04, 10.28, and 10.32 to maintain consistency in community noise control regulations. INITIATED BY: The. City of Newport Beach Mr. Patrick Alford, Senior Planner, presented a brief review of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Amendment No. 807. . Commissioner Adams addressed Policy 4.1.6, and he said that he had a concern that noise barriers could be objectionable with property owners because the barrier could block a view. He suggested that less effective noise barriers could be constructed of transparent material, and he asked if the Noise Element could include the improvements of residences, i.e. double pane glass or the insulation in the walls. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that the Uniform Building Code states that a unit has to be noise attenuated to the level of 45 CNEL and the exterior level of noise would remain at 65 CNEL. Mr. Webb stated that the City has resisted requirements to noise attenuate homes because any time a home is retrofitted the construction would be extremely expensive. When views have been involved the City has suggested transparent walls to help the views, and if the property owner did not want a transparent wall then it was up to the property owner to make modifications to the home. He said that he would not approve of a policy that stated that the City was required to do mitigation to the home in view situations. Mr. Vincent Mestre, 280 Newport Center Drive, Noise Consultant for the Noise Element and the Noise Ordinance, appeared before . -31- MINUTES i.rIry f%z` wr1r.%1111rnnarr nV ar%sr \� }- `CJ W'\vO` W \ Vl l 1 Vi l�u �� a vaa a aiaisavaa RO CALL IND EX the Planning Commission. In response to comments by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Mestre stated that clear noise barriers can be as effective as a solid barrier providing the transparent material is of sufficient density. For areas where there is potential view blockage it has been the policy that it is up to the homeowner whether or not the barrier is constructed; however, if the homeowners do not want the barrier either for view or they do not want construction done on their property but adjacent property owners do, a barrier would continue along the roadway and become a side yard barrier for the homeowner that wants the noise barrier. He said the City does not recommend sound insulation as a City program. Chairman Glover addressed Policy 4.23, and she asked if gasoline powered leaf blowers would be allowed. Mr. Alford replied that an option is a ban on gasoline powered leaf blowers within residential areas or within 200 feet of residential areas. Mr. Mestre stated that there are cities that have established noise standards for gasoline powered blowers, and it is that city's policy for the owners to apply for a license to operate the blower. In response to comments by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Alford stated that there are few issues in the policies with the exception of the leaf blowers that would be directly reflected in the Municipal Code or the Zoning Code. The issues address actual programs and policies that would be used on applications, i.e. Site Plan Review and Use Permits, and it would give the City options for addressing noise regulations in the event there would be an undue burden on the project. Ms. Temple addressed the purpose to update the Noise Element and the adoption of a comprehensive Noise Ordinance. Staff has been enacting Mitigation Measures on projects, including requiring vacuum sweeping of parking lots as opposed to blowing, for many years, and it was being done through the environmental review process. Many of the issues that are now being considered as new regulations were being addressed through other securous means, and the result would be that every item would be treated equally. . -32- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Tillu 1, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to comments by Commissioner Adams regarding Policy 4.2.2, a standard for single family detached units in areas above 60 CNEI , Mr. Mestre said that the City applies the noise standards on new projects that are being recommended for new construction. Most of the options consider exemptions to the requirements for projects that would have extreme difficulty complying with the existing standards, i.e. mixed use projects or projects in areas with limited lot size. Mr. Mestre stated that the City currently enforces the noise standard as a part of the approval process for a new single family project. Option 2 and Option 3 of Policy 4.2.2, party wall and floor insulation in multi- family structures, is a part of the Uniform Building Code and the issue considers how the building code enforcement is accomplished. Following a discussion by the Planning Commission concerning the proposed Noise Element and Noise Ordinance, the Commission requested that staff provide further clarification of the noise policy. Motion was made to continue General Plan Amendment No. 87- 1B and Amendment No. 807 to the Planning Commission meeting of August 4, 1994. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he had a concern with respect to limiting the duplication of effort. Commissioner Gifford requested a clarification of which elements of the report would be related to the General Plan as opposed to the Noise Ordinance. Chairman Glover expressed a concern regarding Policy 4.1.4 regarding a public awareness program regarding vehicles that do not meet State Motor Vehicle Code noise standards. Motion Motion was voted on to continue General Plan Amendment No. Ayes * 87 -1 B and Amendment No. 807 to the August 4, 1994, Planning Absent Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. i s a 10 -33- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R CALL INDEX ADJOURNMENT- p.m. Adjourn TOD RIDGEWAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION . -34-