Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/29/1974COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \7, *1 Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers MINUTES Time: 7:00 p.m. rAftrAu m Date: August 29, 1974 Present Absent 0 x x x x x x X EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director David R. Baade, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning Tim Cowell, Advance Planning Administrator Joanne Bader, Secretary Item #1 Final. Request approval of the Final Map of Tentative.. Map Tract No. 8638, establishing one lot with area of 1.226 acres where six lots now Map Tract exist so as to permit the conversion of six 8638 apartment buildings into a 36 -unit condominium development.. Approved Location: Lots 2 through 7 of Tract 3606, Condi- located at 1184 -1256 Rutland tionally Road, on the east side of Rutland Road, between Mariners Drive and Bedford Lane, in Westcliff. Zone: R -3 Applicant: R. M. Galloway & Associates, Inc., Newport Beach Owner: Rutland Newport Beach Company, c/o United Professional. Planning, Sherman Oaks Engineer: Same as Applicant Community Development Director Hogan informed the Commission that the applicant has complied with the conditions of.the tentative tract map and that the covenants and conditions are now under review by the City Attorney's Office and the Community Development Department and when they are found to be satisfactory will be approved. He then informed the Commission that the staff recommends approval of the final tract map. -1- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � A 9 nn�s„ A w August 29, 1974 MINUTES R. Burrows, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and answered questions regarding the request. Ed Clean, 1228 Rutland Road, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he feels the apartment is deeply in need of repair and then in detail discussed the particular items which he feels needs repair or replacement. He brought particular attention to the thinness of the walls. He stated that there is only one car port alloted for each apartment which results in two -car families having to park in the street. He discussed the theft and vandalism rate of the area with the Commission and stated that since this proposal approximately 1/3 of the tenants have moved out with more to follow. He stated that most of the people who live in these apartments are senior citizens who no longer care for the responsibility of home owner- ship. Mr. Clean felt that these apartments should not be sold as condominiums in their • present condition. Motion x Following discussion, motion was made for approval of Final Tract Map 8638, subject to staff approval of C.C. & R.'s. Harvey Rosen, partner to Mr. Burrows, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the C.C. & R.'s provide for professional management and the Department of Real Estate requires that substantial budgets be allocated for plumbing repair, electrical repair, roofing repair, painting, heating, pool, etc: Me. Rosen felt that because of this, condominiums are better run than single family tracts. He then discussed the repairs and replacements that they are planning to make to the apartment. Planning Commission discussed the depth at which the City Inspector inspected the apartment. Community Development Director Hogan explained that inspection is mainly limited to what can be seen from the outside of the building and that access could not be taken to each and every apartment nor could we ascertain the condition of the electrical and plumbing facilities which • would require dismantlement of the walls. -2- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CTy T'y mi f+ m August 29, 1974 Motion All Ayes Absent Motion All Ayes Absent MINUTES ,uner 1974 Location: Lot 2, Tract 8073, located at 939 Bayside Drive, on the southerly side of Bayside Drive, westerly of Marine Avenue. Zone: R -3 Applicant: The Irvine Co., dba, Irvine Pacific Development Co., Newport Beach Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Appellant: Same as Applicant x Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of September 19, 1974 per the x applicant's request. Item #3 Request to permit the construction of drive -in Use Per -. banking facilities in conjunction with a miT- proposed savings and loan building. 1733 Location: Lots 26 through 30, Tract 1210, Approved located at 900 West Coast Highway, Condi- on the northerly side of West tionally Coast Highway, westerly of Dover Drive, across West Coast Highway from the Balboa Bay Club. Zone: C -1 -H Applicant: Newport Savings & Loan, Newport Beach Owner: Tract No. 1210 Limited, Newport Beach -3- x A Amended motion for approval of Final Tract Map 8638 subject to the conditions as they were x o originally approved on the Tentative Map. Item #2 Request approval of a modification that was M Modifi- denied by the Modifications Committee so as to c cation to encroach 4 feet 6 inches into the required. 10 foot rear yard setback (i.e., Balboa Island C Continuec Channel side) in conjunction with "The Cove" t to residential condominium development. S Sept. 19, COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n m 3 August 29, 1974 MINUTES unw r mvcn Community Development Director Hogan clarified that the only thing of issue is the drive -in facility and that the rest of the savings and loan facility is a permitted use in the district and that the staff recommends approval: Planning Commission discussed staff recommendation No. 2 which states: "That the maximum total sign area for all signs (excluding convenience signs) shall not exceed 60 square feet. As set forth in the proposed sign ordinance, the area of double faced signs is counted as the area of one face." Planning Commission discussed whether it is appropriate to condition approval of anything on standards which have not yet been adopted. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter and George Hoelzel, President of Newport Savings, appeared before the Planning • Commission and enounced.that they can and will comply with all the recommendations as made by staff and that he did not feel these conditions would be detrimental to business. Planning Commission discussed the proposed landscaping for the site and parking. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion that Use Permit 1733 be approved subject All Ayes to the following conditions: Absent x 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and elevations. 2. That the maximum total sign area for all signs (excluding convenience signs) shall not exceed 60 square feet. As set forth in the proposed sign ordinance, the area of double faced signs is counted as the area of one face. . The applicant shall be allowed one wall sign (parallel to the public right -of -way) and one freestanding sign not to exceed 50 sq. ft. per face or 12 feet in height. -4- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T r T T Y ROOCALL • 0 MINUTES August 29, 1974 tuncy The free - standing sign must be placed in a planted area two times the area of the sign, and its location approved by the Community Development Director. In lieu of the freestanding sign, the applicant may place one wall sign (perpendicu- lar to the public right -of -way) at each end of the building. The area of these two signs shall be one -half the sum of their individual areas, so that they will be treated the same as a single double faced sign. Convenience signs such as "entrance ", "exit ", or "drive thru teller" must be approved by the Community Development Director: These signs shall be the minimum size necessary, and shall not include the name or logo of the savings and loan. 3. That a resubdivision application shall be processed and a parcel map be.fi.led. 4. That landscaping be provided as indicated and that it be installed and permanently main- tained in accordance with a plan approved by the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreati n. Commissioner Parker stated that he feels it is essentially inequitable and unfair to require people to adhere to standards which are not adopte Item #4 Request to establish one building site and eliminate interior lot lines where five lots now Resub- division exist so as to remodel an existing commercial. No. 467 Approved_ building on the property. Location: Lots 26 through 30, Tract 1210,. Condi- located at 900 West Coast Highway, tionally on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, westerly of Dover Drive, across West .Coast Highway from the Balboa Bay Club. Zone: C - 1. -H Applicant: Newport Savings and Loan - George Hoelzel, Newport Beach Owner: Tract No. 1210 Limited, Newport Beac Engineer: Engineering Technology, Newport Beach -5- COMMISSIONERS T F T a F � m Motion All Ayes Absent E n U CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 29, 19,74 ,nvcn Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. x Motion for approval subject to the following condition: x 1.. That a Parcel Map be filed. Item #5 Request to consider the adoption of the Noise, Noise Element of the Newport Beach General Plan Element (Continued Public Hearing). Approved Initiated By: The City of Newport Beach with Revisions Advance Planning Administrator Cowell appeared before the Planning Commission and suggested two revisions to the draft Noise Element, as follows: 1. Page 39, Proposal No. 1, add the following sentence: "It is recognized that revisions to the CAC requirements will be necessary to assure reasonability and practicability in their application to single- family residential development." (This revision was suggested in order to ameliorate the concerns expressed in the Irvine Company's letter of August 26, 1974.) 2. Page 39, Proposal No. 3, replace with the following: "Consider the adoption of a local noise control.ordinance." (This revision was suggested so that the Planning Commission is not bound to the adoption of a Noise Ordinance in adopting the Noise Element.) Advance Planning Administrator Cowell then reviewed the August 26, 1974 letter from the Irvine Company and answered questions of the Commission relative to sound level measuring equipment and present standards. Community Development Director Hogan clarified for the Commission that the Noise Ordinance that is before them i.s to control the noise source. He stated that state law controls construction practices which protects residential multi - family development. He explained that -6- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M D .Aft . M p p N August 29. 1974 MINUTES uww the staff is recommending in the Noise Element that the City adopt an additional City Ordinance " which would protect all sources of residential development to the same extent as far as external noise sources are concerned. The Commission questioned the factualness of. the Noise Element on Page 26 which refers to the Aircraft Noise Level Study and states: "This study concluded that the measured noise levels found were consistent with the earlier CNEL contours, and that speech interference and sleep disturbance are frequent occurences." (Underscore added). Advance Planning Adminis- trator Cowell replied that this is a quote from a report prepared by Veneklasen and Associates. Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Dave Neish, Planning Administration Manager of the Irvine Company, appeared and replied that the revisions that Mr. Cowell has submitted to the Commission.for Page 39 of the element are agreeable to the Irvine • Company and further replied that the other concerns expressed in the Irvine Company letter were merely concerns that they wished to raise for both the staff and Commission's edification. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission discussed the repetition in the Noise Element of the City's policy regarding the Orange County Airport, i.e., the section of the element that starts on Page 31 which is "Existing City Policy on Orange County Airport" and also the portion of "Noise Control Program" starting on Page 39, especially on Page 40, Item 7 where it in effect incorporates the existing City policy on the Orange County Airport. Planning Commission discussed whether these sections are out of place in this Noise Element and whether it seems to go out on an "inflexible limb ". In response to the Commission's question as to whether the element should contain City Policy on Motor Vehicle Noise, .Community . Development Director Hogan brought to the attention of the Commission that on Page 40 of the Noise Element, Item 5 it states "Continue to enforce the California Vehicle Code Provisions.relating to modified muffler systems" and that on Page 41, Item 8 it states "Support the development and enforcement of more -7- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C T ZD (� m n• i yZ ^' � T p p N Auqust 29, 1974 MINUTES IYffCY n Mu r stringent State and Federal Vehicle and Aircraft Noise Control Legislation ",. Planning Commission discussed the possibility of revising Item 8 to read "Support, and where appropriate, initiate the development and enforcement of local, State, and Federal . Vehicle and Aircraft Noise Control Legislation ". Commissioner Beckley brought notice to the report, "Studies Related to Jet Aircraft - Originated Noise Levels and the Economic Impact Upon Residential Property Values Associated with the Orange County Airport" that was prepared by Mawhinney and Long, Real Estate Appraisers. Commissioner Beckley stated he had little doubt that they had made an accurate appraisal of real estate values in the two areas, namely that one changed so much and one changed the other. He then voiced his objection to the theory that the only cause for. the differential in the real estate values to exist is the jet aircraft. He then stated that we have numbers of evidences of what makes • the real estate values especially high in the Harbor View Hills area and then suggested that the increased development in Big Canyon and the finishing of the shopping center have a dominant effect on the real estate values. He stated that Mawhinney and Long compared a development that was 4 to 4 -1/2 years old with one that was 11 years old and that they didn't compare the 4 -1/2 year old development with the houses immediately underneath the flight path on the same side of the hill. He'stated that if it were. vitally important to the Commission, he would suggest that that type of information be gathered as a comparison to see if those directly under the flight path appreciated to.the same extent as those further up the hill and further away did. He stated that Mawhinney and Long ignored the military helicopter flyover in the area of Harbor View Hills essentially pretending . that had no influence and yet the sound measurement shows that the military helicopters are putting out more DBA's than the commercial jets are.. He stated t Mawhinney and Long f9�a then came��qq$g to ttie,IBluff's side and didn't. law compare tfie"�{Sluff appreciation with the area immediately to the west of it admitting it is QII ql� in a different town and maybe that influences real estate values as well. He further .stated that to accept this report with any degree of . -.8- COMMISSIONERS Amy � °y mf n m ¢ 4 A P u � T Motion All Ayes Absent • L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 29, 1974 IunFY seriousness or meaning, he could read into it that someone may cite this as proof at a later date that this is factual information. Commissioner Beckl.ey stated that he does not believe the conclusion and that he believes the techniques used in the appriasal but not the reasons for them. Commissioner Beckley stated that he does not support this portion of the element. x Motion that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 895 recommending to City Council x the adoption of the Noise Element and the acceptance of EIR /NB 74 -047, with the following revisions to the element: 1. Page 39, Proposal No. 1, add the following sentence: "It is recognized that revisions to the CAC requirements will be necessary to assure reasonability and practicability in their application to single- family residential development." 2. Page 39, Proposal No. 3, replace with the following: "Consider the adoption of a local noise control ordinance. ", and to admonish the authors of the study prepared by Mawhinney and Long with a finding that the Mawhinney and Long report is suspect for some of the reasons earlier mentioned in Commissioner Beckley's statement. Commissioner Seely requested that his voting for the element not be interpreted as a full - hearted endorsement of all the conclusions of the Mawhinney and Long report or of certain of the specifics of the Orange County Airport Policy which he agrees with the purpose but thinks some of the specific objectives are rather inflexible. Item #6 Proposal to amend the Newport Beach Municipal Noise Code by the adoption of a Noise Ordinance Ordinanc (Continued Public Hearing). Tabled Initiated By: The City of Newport Beach Community Development Director Hogan stated that the Commission has already considered this -9- COMMISSIONERS CITY O� NEWPORT BEACH (1 p T r m T i 2 T t Y „M,.,, T p p N A u q u s t 29, 1974 MINUTES uwev � uwrw Ordinance to some extent and has directed that it be brought back to them at the time the Commission considered the Noise Element. Advance Planning Administrator Cowell appeared before the Planning Commission and.answered questions of the Commission relating to the fact that the proposed Ordinance is basically the Ordinance that was adopted by the County, and . that the County hopes that all cities will adopt such an Ordinance resulting in County -wide uniformity. Community Development Director Hogan advised the Commission that the City is not plagued with . the kinds of operations that create noises of the type that this Ordinance is specifically designed to control and that most of the-noises the City has complaints,about are those that are made by people in their every day activities, i.e., loud stereos, parties, etc. Mr.: Hogan further advised that the staff has no findings but perhaps the Planning Commission has some • examples of noise sources.that really.should. be controlled and would be effectively . controlled by this Ordinance. He stated that the staff does not have the kind of evidence to enthusiastically support the Ordinance for that purpose. Planning Commission discussed that an individual cannot tell whether the levels that are proposed would not in actuality eliminate the kinds of noises that we tolerate or.make them illegal. Chief Glavas appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he feels that this Planning Commission as well as former Planning Commissions have done an admirable job insofar as keeping noisier areas from quieter ones. He then urged the Commission to "go slow" in an Ordinance whereby they adopt objective standards that may, in fact, inhibit doing a job for the people of this community in terms of eliminating objectionable noise. He stated that for six years the Police Department has been attempting to get realistic decibel noise level ratings • adopted by the California Highway Patrol and that they still find.t.hat despite some reduction, the decibels permitted by the California Vehicle Code, adopted by the California Highway Patrol are f -10- COMMISSIONERS n m D m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 29, 1974 MINUTES RUW VALL I I I INDEX still in the terms of most people too high. He stated that the Police Department has attempted to go out on the roadway and test under very exacting conditions and they find that .very few vehicles exceed the decibel limit placed by the Vehicle Code. He pointed out that he feels the Police Department has been rather successful in stopping and eliminating those normal sources of noise which are found most objectionable in this community. He further stated that Newport Beach has a limited amount of industry, a great amount of residential, and a considerable amount of commercial. He informed the Commission that the residential noise is.generally from the residential occupants of the area and that he feels the Police Department has been reasonably successful in dealing with this. He stated that the Police Department deals with noise on a rather subjective basis, i.e., if neighbors complain and find it objectionable and the Police Department finds that a substantial number of people in the area are disturbed, that is sufficient for the • Police Department to act upon. He stated that once an Ordinance of this type is adopted, if the Police Department tries to proceed subjectively, he is sure that the courts will very shortly begin to question their subjective evaluations and suggest that as long as they have.adopted objective standards, they should provide the court with the information relative to exceeding the objective standards. He then stated that this can be a very irksome and trying process because the testing process using a decibel meter has to be dealt �ith in a court in terms of where it was placed, what obstructions, shrubbevy, and the surrounding areas are relative to the use of the decibel meter. He informed the Commission that it isn't simply a matter of puttin the decibel meter down and getting a reading. He stated that he made inquiry of the City of Ingle- wood, who adopted a very.similar Noise Ordinance which gave authority to a department similar to the Newport Beach Community Development Department and did supply the supervising members of the Inglewood Police Department with decibel meters. He stated that he was told they are not using the decibel meters and they are, referring all noise complaints to the Planning Agency, and, • therefore, the City is` getting referrals instead of action in response to their noise complaints. He then read a report from P. Patrick Mann, Environmental Standard$ Supervisor, regarding -11- COMMISSIONERS . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A owe.,, m August 29, 1974 INDEX a summary of Noise Ordinance enforcement information. He: then stated that he wonders if it is necessary to add additional personnel to do . a job that is presently handled in a satisfactory manner with existing personnel. He stated that if there is an overriding need in the.minds of the Commission, that they give some serious consideration to looking at the Ordinance again in terms of perhaps dividing the enforcement responsibilities and eliminating the decibels of noise as an objective criteria for neighborhood noise that needs more immediate attention than coming out with a decibel meter. He then answered questions of the Commission pertaining to the amount of noise complaints received in a month and discussed the Criminal Abatement Process with the Commission. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. M' on x Following discussion, motion to table consideratio of the Noise Ordinance. Commissioner Seely stated that if this motion is approved, it might be appropriate for the staff to communicate this action to the Orange County Health Department and perhaps leave the door open for them to advise the Commission of the experiences, if any, that other cities may have that might make the Commission want to reconsider the Ordinance at some future time. Commissioner Parker stated that there apparently is no demonstrable noise problem in Newport Beach that this proposed Ordinance addresses itself to, and in his view this proposed Ordinance does not control, or attempt to control, the major sources of noise, i.e., helicopter and . airplane overflight and traffic noise. He stated that it will definitely complicate enforcement problems and if anything, has a tendency to perhaps encourage noise problems over and above what the City has now due to failure to enforce under this Ordinance. He stated that in his view it tends to once again expose the City to further outside governmental • control over our own affairs by the County. Commissioner Beckley stated that he does not believe the proposed noise standards or the -12- COMMISSIONERS Motion All Ayes Absent • • (� m D m M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 29, 1974 MINUTES. r ,nvcn effect of the proposed standards is well enough understood to consider them as valid. x Motion to table consideration of the Noise Ordinance. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Item #7 Proposal of M. J. Brock and Sons to modify the street and lot,design within a portion of Proposal to modify Tentative Tract 7967 in Jasmine Creek so as to permit the construction of one - story dwellings the where split -level homes would otherwise be street required. and lot design Community Development Director Hogan stated that within a portion o some of the Commissioners saw .this particular. Tentative request at their Study Session of the last Tract 7967— meeting. He then stated that this is a request of the developer to approve a modification to.the tentative map which does not substantially alter the tentative map and, subsequently, Approved would be included at the time they submit the final. He clarified that this proposal is essentially the opening of some of those streets which are presently closed and in cul -de -sacs. James Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning, .. showed the Planning Commission on the map the three cul -de -sacs that would be removed. He stated that this proposal is to eliminate the area which was in the cul -de -sac and bring the streets through so that they tie into the loop collector. He then stated that from a Public Works and fire standpoint; the design that is proposed is far superior to that which was originally considered under the tentative map. He further stated that the area that is in the cul -de -sacs would be used to enlarge the lot they have now and in so enlarging the lot, would be able to get a single -story dwelling on the larger parcel where they have a split -level home on a smaller parcel. He informed the Commission that there is no increase in the number of lots and no increase in ridge height. Community Development Director Hogan explained that the staff's major concern in examining this proposal was to make sure the developer did not in any way encroach into those ridge height lines that were approved by the Planning -13- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH eo cell � m � � August 29, 1974 MINUTES -"' - -- INUCA Commission and City Council in the approving of the original tentative map. He stated that they do not encroach in those ridge height lines in any case and, in most cases where they made any change to the type of dwelling that was approved, it would be a reduction of that ridge height line by putting in a one-story house where a split -level house was planned originally. Planning Commission discussed the amount of parking spaces. The staff explained that more parking would be provided with the modification. Community Development Director Hogan explained that originally it was planned that.there would be three dwelling units on the east side of the street and two dwelling units'on the west side of the street. He stated that this has been changed so that now three dwelling units are proposed for the west side of the street and two dwelling units are proposed for • the east side. Larry Olin, of M. J. Brock Construction Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and concurred.with the oral staff report. He then introduced his engineer, who discussed his view planes with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Agee stated that he has heard from some people in Harbor View Hills who followed this development for some time and that they seem to have no particular concern regarding this change. Commissioner Heather stated that it is her concern that if the Commission is going to take action, or conceive that this is an appropriate revision to the tentative tract map,, that it be done at one of the Commission's regular meetings rather than a Study Session where that kind of action may not be appropriate and if the people are concerned that they have an opportunity to speak. Community Development Director Hogan explained • that this is not an advertised public hearing and that the has staff not specifically notified -14- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m = m y MINUTES P m August 29, 1974 INDEX Motion All Ayes Absent • people of this proposal. He stated that there possibly may be people who. are not aware of the proposal and that it is up to the Commission to decide if the change is a major enough proposal to do this, then it should be a revision to the tentative map. He further stated that if the Commission thinks this change is minor enough that it doesn't need this, the Commission can approve this proposal as a minor change. Planning Commission discussed the appropriateness of their deciding that this is a minor change and acting on it without a .public hearing. Motion that the Commission finds that this change will not require a revision to the x tentative map. Item #8 Request of staff to interpret the conditions of Request to approval of Use Permit No. 1711 as they relate to the permitted occupant load of the.proposed inter - Warehouse Restaurant in Lido Village,. pret the condi- Community Development Director Hogan explained tions that there is a conflict between two of the of . conditions of the Use Permit that the staff approval would like to clear up: 1) That the development of Use be.in.substantial compliance with the approved Permit floor plans except for minor modifications 1711 approved by the Community Development Department, 2) That the occupancy of the restaurant shall Approved not exceed 277 persons prior to 6:00 p.m. and shall not exceed a total of 400 persons after 6:00 p.m. Mr. Hogan stated that "400 persons after 6:00 p.m.' creates a problem because the floor plans as presented at the time of the hearing.would provide for an occupancy of 524 persons as computed by the Building Code. He then explained that.the applicant's understanding was that "400" meant 400 seats in the restaurant and that it was the staff Ts understanding that "400" meant an occupant load of 400. He stated that the entire reason for restricting the occupant load is because of the parking provision and that the.appl.icant has plenty of parking after 6:00 p.m. He further explained that.the applicant has had an off -site parking agreement approved by the City Council at their last meeting and that there is no reason that the off -site parking agreement can't be made to -15- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Y m August 29, 1974 MINUTES include adequate parking as provided by the Code for the 524 occupant load. He stated that "400" was applied for by the applicant (which he understood to mean as seats) and the seating plan he has for the restaurant is less than. 400. He stated that if the Commission has no objection, staff will interpret that the "400" was meant as the applicant applied for it (as seats on his seating plan). He further stated that the occupant load as computed by the Building Code would be 524 and that staff would require in his off -site parking agreement that he set aside adequate parking that would provide for 524 people. He stated that it would be a matter of 175 parking places, in the parking agreement, that he would have to keep available for the restaurant usage. He informed the Commission that the conditions of the Use Permit would not change, but it would be inter- preted to mean that the "400" be the limitation on the number of seats that would be provided in the restaurant, but that where the parking says a minimum of 134, staff would require that • the agreement, and the applicant has indicated that he is willing to sign the agreement, provide 175. Planning Commission discussed parking.standards, means.of determining occupancy load and the Restaurant Parking Study. Don Koll appeared and answered questions of the Commission relative to the request. Tim Strader appeared before the Planning Commissio and stated that he put in 400 persons when he filed the application and that he was not aware of the occupancy square footage computation. He stated that these are the same plans that were approved by the Proposition 20 Commission and informed the Commission that the staff discovered this inconsistency in the conditions and that they are at the meeting to get a confirmation so they can conclude the planning stage and start the construction. Motion x Following discussion, motion was made that the Com ission All Ayes finds that there was an inadvertent error in the Agnt x presentation of the occupancy figure in that the -16- 0 0 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r MINUTES August 29, 1974 "400" referred to seats rather than. persons and that the.staff be allowed to reinterpret the "400" figure as being seating, with an occupancy load of 524 and that the Commission not require a further public hearing conditioned upon the applicant adjusting the minimum parking requirement to the proposed figure of 175. Request for approval of street names within the Coves Development. Community Development.Director Hogan advised the Commission that Irvine Pacific has requested INDEX Item #9 Request for approval of street names the street names of Bayside Cove East and within Bayside Cove West. He stated that staff has the Coves shown these proposed street names to the Dev —gip- Police and Fire Departments and that the.Police ment Department has indicated they have no objection, however, the.Fire Department feels it might Approved cause confusion because of other similar names in the City. James Hewicker, Assistant Director — Planning, informed the Commission of other streets in the City with similar names and informed the Commission that the staff was concerned originally with the names Cove East and Cove West with respect to emergency use confusion. Ralph Spargo, Assistant to the D,,irector of Architecture and Planning for Irvine Pacific, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that they were.trying to identify the street names with the project, i.e., Bayside Cove Community Association. He stated that they had originally proposed Cove East and Cove West but then had feed.back from the staff that this would be in conflict with existing names. He stated they then decided to use Cove with a modifier and proposed - "Bayside Cove East" and "Bayside Cove West" which would identify this street as connected to Bayside Drive, connected to the Cove, and the name of the project. Planning Commission discussed the possibility of making "Bayside Cove" all one word and the possibility of referring this matter back to the Safety Forces for a unified opinion: -17- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF Amy m; mf DAM rsii August 29, 1974 NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES "new Planning Commission voiced disappointment that the Fire Department did not appear before them to give the reasoning behind their disapproval of these street names and for not giving any suggestions. Planning Commission then discussed whether they should approve a street name when one of the safety forces feels it could be confusing,, and discussed the possibility of approving a third choice. Motion x Motion.to adopt the names Bayside Cove East and Ayes x x x x x Bayside Cove West, and that the Fire Department Noes x be told that in the future when this situation Absent k occurs, that the Commission would like more guidance from them in that they appear or if they cannot appear, at least submit a memo outlining specifically their viewpoints. Motion x There being no further business, Planning Ayes Commission adjourned at 10:30 p.m. A ent x ames Parker, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach • -18-