Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/1980Present Absent 0 X REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Place: City Council Chambers Time:. 7.:30 p.m. Date: September 18, 1980 0 t Beach Commissioner Allen and Commissioner McLaughlin were .absent. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney MINUTES STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock,_ Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Senior Planner Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary Commissioner Thomas stated that he would like a revision to the August 21, 1980, 7:30 p.m. Minutes on.Page Number 31, First Paragraph under.Public Property Leaseholds, to reflect.more of his dis- cussion on the fair market value system and use of the funds. He also stated that he would like a revision to the September 4, 1980, 7:30 p.m. Minutes on Page Number 42, First Paragraph to expand further on the condominium conversion discussion. Therefore, approval of the Minutes were continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of October 9, 1980. Request to accept an off -site parking agreement Item #1 for five parking spaces in accordance with anon- OFFSITE dition of approval for Use Permit No. 19.44 that permitted.the establishment of a restaurant facil= PARKING AGREEMENT ity with on -sale wine. ennnn urn � NKIL411® Motion Ayes Absent 0 September 18, 1980. 11 OCATION: ZONE APPLICANT: OWNER MINUTES The easterly one -half of Lot 10,` resubdivision of Block 9, Balboa located.at the rear of 204 Washington Avenue, northerly of Balboa Boulevard in Central Balboa (restaurant site). C -1 Robert Cuilty, Newport Beach Melvin Fuchs, et al, Balboa Planning Director Hewicker stated that this off- site parking agreement was submitted in response to a condition of approval the Planning Commission had placed on the applicant for approval of Use Permit No.. 1944. The discussion was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Robert Cuilty, the applicant, ap- peared before the Commission and stated that he is in agreement with the findings'and conditions of the staff report. There being no further discussion on this item, the following motion was made: Motion was made to approve the Off- Site.Parking X X Agreement for Use. Permit.No. 1944; with. the * following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. The off -site parking area is across the street and is: so located to be useful to.the proposed restaurant use. 2. The applicant has provided a letter indicating the property owner's intentions to allow the use of the Balboa Market.parking lot for the proposed restaurant use. 3. The business hours between the market and the proposed restaurant have been determined to -2- COMMISSIONERS September 18, 1980 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX be compatible so as not to place an excessive demand on the subject parking area. 4. The off -site parking spaces will not.create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. CONDITIONS: 1. That an off -site parking agreement shall be approved by. the_ City.Council guaranteeing that a minimum of five (5) parking spaces shall be provided in the Balboa Market park- ing lot located on a portion of Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11, Block i,.Balboa Tract for the duration of the restaurant use located at 204 -B Washington Avenue. 2. That a sign shall be installed adjacent to the entrance of the restaurant facility that identifies the location of the off -site parking lot for customers. Said sign shall • be approved by the Planning Department. Request to consider the revocation of Use Permit Item #.2 No. 1.865 that.permitted a restaurant facility with on -sale beer and wine in an existing USE PERMI building in the C -1 District. This public NO. 1866 hearing is to determine whether or not said use permit should be revoked for failure to ( evocation) comp -ly with certain required conditions of approval. Continued LOCATION: Lot 13, Tract No. 1210, located.at to Novem- 500.West Coast Highway, on the ber 20, 1970- northerly side of West Coast High- way, across from Bayshores. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Carina E. D. Matteo INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach OWNER: Bob Taube,_Newport Beach • -3- September 18, 1980 I City of Newport Beach MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker stated that.the appli- cant has not met the. con.ditions of the Use Permit and those items mentioned in a letter from the applicant. He stated that the business is in the process of being sold with a-45 day escrow. During this transition; the current owner and the new owner will be on the premises. He sug- gested that the Commission take testimony on this case, and then.continue it for a period of 30 to 45 days, to allow the applicant time to work out these problems. He stated that if the applicant could resolve the problems; the Commission could then extend the.use. permit for a period of two years. He also stated that it.was his understand ing that. the building will be removed at the end of the two year period. Chairman Haidinger noted that the applicant was not in attendance of the meeting. Chairman Haidinger instructed staff to notify the • new owner of the property that the Use Permit is being considered for revocation. Commissioner Balalis asked staff if the costs will be substantial for the applicant to meet the outlined conditions. .Planning Director Hewicker stated that the modification of the toilet room facilities for the handicapped may be a substantial cost. Planning Director Hewicker stated that previously the building was used as a fast food restaurant, and presently is being used as a sit down type restaurant. Commissioner Balalis asked if there is a guarantee that the building will be removed in two years. Planning Director Hewicker stated that .there is not a guarantee, this was only a statement made by the current applicant. Commissioner Beek asked staff if the new owner has indicated that he will be applying for a.new use permit. Planning Director Hew.icker stated that it is his understanding that the new owner is buying the business as is. -4- COMMISSIONERS ig September 18, 1980 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion X Motion was made:to continue this case to November. Ayes X X X X 20, 1980, requesting staff to identify and notify Absent * * the new purchaser that the Commission is.consider ing the revocation of the use permit, which MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Balalis suggested that this be handled through the escrow company also,.to en- sure proper notification and.publication of the sales transaction. * * * Request to permit the construction of a duplex Item: #3 structure located in the R -3 District which does . not provide the required open space in the first VARIANCE. 12 feet behind the required front yard setback.. 0. 10 8 007-1-0-7-8' LOCATION: Lot 20; Block 17,'Section B of the DENIED Ne.wport.Beach Tra.ct, located at • . 1719 West Balboa Boulevard on the southerly side of Balboa Boulevard between 1.7th Street and 18th Street on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Properties West, Incorporated, Newport Beach AND OWNER: Same as Applicant AND Request to permit the construction of a duplex Item #4 on a single lot in the R -3 District which does not probide the required open space`:in the first VARIANCE 12 feet of the lot behind the required.front yard: setback. 1079 LOCATION:. ..Lot 19, Block 17, Section B of DENIED Newport Beach Tract,.located at 1721 West Balboa Boulevard on the souther- ly side of Balboa Boulevard between 17th and 18th Streets on the Balboa . Peninsula. -5- COMMISSIONERS m s yx N 7C N ROLL CALL 0 E September 18, 1980 M i 1=1 1 ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Properties West, Incorporated, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Agenda Items 3 and 4 were heard concurrently because-of their relationship. Chairman Haidinger stated that Page 4 of the sta report, Paragraph 4 should read R -3, rather than R -2. Staff concurred. MINUTES The public hearing was opened in connection with these items and Mr. Spangler, architect of the project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Spangler stated that he was the creator of the original open space option. He stated that the original concept of this option was to provide open space to create an undulating pattern of buildings.' This made sense at that time because only three parking spaces were required, but now the Coastal Commission requires four parking spaces, which takes an additional 20 feet.from the building, He stated that this is now creating sub - standard dwelling units that are not liveable. He added that the open space option should no longer exist and the concept should be eliminated. s He also tated that-somehow-the open space option is exempt in the R -2 zone, which covers most of the duplex housing in Newport Beach. Commissioner Bal.alis stated. that the Commission felt that the open.space requirement was needed at the time of it's adoption. He stated that for sometime the staff has been asking for standard- ization in treatment of the open space requirement Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Spangler if the lot were zoned R -2, would the building then meet the open space requirements. Mr. Spangler stated that the building would meet said requirement: Com- missioner Balalis also asked if there is a need for R -3 zoning to be dispersed among the R -2 lots in the Peninsula. Mr. Spangler stated that many of the lots are.R -3 zoned in name only, but by all standards could be R -2, with the exception of the open space requirement. INDEX COMMISSIONERS September 18, 1980 MINUTES 5 y City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III III INDEX Planning Director Hewicker clarified that the open space requirement has not been exempted from the R -2 district. The Residential Development Standards as originally conceived were to apply to West Newport, the Peninsula and Corona del Mar Subsequent to the original adoption, it was de- cided that in the R -2 areas the Residential* Development Standards should apply City wide. The R- 24esignation was taken out of the Residen- tial Development Standards chapter and the R -2 district was re- written so that the standards would apply City w.ide. The open space option as described in.the R -2 district when it was re- written.was to allow the open space option to be provided anywhere on the lot, as opposed to only behind the front 12 foot setback line. Mr. Spangler stated that the entire concept of the open space option was not to force someone to have open space on their lot, but to create an • undulating effect of buildings, which would be better for the City. Planning Director Hewicker stated that his under- standing of the open space option was to not only provide streetscape relief and the undulating effect, but also to.provide a functional open space by the dimension of six feet. Planning Director Hewicker also stated that the developmen standards in the R -2 a.nd R -3 district are.not the same. The height limitation is 28 feet at-the rear,of a.lot in the R -3 and-24-feet in the R -2 distract. The floor area ratio is also different in that the R -3 allows 3 times .the buildable area and does not include the parking area, and the R -2 allows 2 times the buildable area, which in- cludes the parking area. Commissioner Balalis stated that the R -3 district is very misleading. Realistically, the City shoul have a one unit single, family lot and a two unit lot. Commissioner Balalis asked staff if the design of this particular unit would meet the oper space option if it were in the R -2 district. Staff responded yes. Commissioner Balalis stated that the reason the applicant needs a Variance is . because his _particular lot has a zoning of R 73, yet he can not put more than two units on it. -7- i 1] 9 September 1.8, 1980 of Newport Beach` MINUTES Commissioner Beek asked staff for clarification.. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the densi limitation in the R -3 is one dwelling unit per each 1200 square feet of lot area. Commissioner Balalis stated that 3600 square feet of lot area would be needed, yet to his knowledge there are no lots in the Peninsula that could meet this. Commissioner.Beek suggested that there should be an action initiated to rezone all of the R -3 lots to R -2. Commissioner Beek be feasible to put across the rear of in the side yard. could be possible, cult narrow space asked Mr. Spangler if it would three of the 'parking spaces the lot.with a tandem space Mr. Spangler stated that this but that it would be a diffi- to use. Mrs. Schwarm, owner of the property next door, appeared before the Commission and stated that if the duplex is built, she will be pinned in because it will take away her air, ventilation and sun- shine. She also stated that there is a 3 -story building on the other side of her.property. Commissioner Balalis stated that the applicant is prov °iding the open space in the interior portions of the building. Mrs. Schwarm stated that this will not solve her problems. Commissioner Balali asked her how far back her setback is. Mrs. Schwarm stated that she has a 20 foot setback on her property. She stated that she is not asking the applicant for the full 12 foot setback, but at least one -half of it should be required. Commissioner Thomas asked staff if sun.rights or solar access requirements would apply to this case. Planning Director'Hewicker stated that the requirements would.only apply to the subdivision new property, not to the redevelopment of existin property. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, September 18, 1980 City Of MINUTES I ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX. stated that there may be certain.provisions in the Civil Code which allow for solar access. Motion Motion was made to approve Variance Nos. 1078 and Ayes X 1079 subject to the findings and conditions of Noes X X X approval as found in Exhibit B of the staff re- Absent port, which MOTION FAILED. Commissioner Beek explained his No vote on the motion and stated that he is in agreement with Mrs. Schwarm that-the intent of the open space option is to keep the open space in the.front.of the building "along the streets. He stated that he does not find that this requirement has been cancelled by the fact that the Coastal Commission has started to require adequate parking, which the City does not require. The open space is still needed along the street frontage and a duplex of over 3,000 square feet can still be built which is certainly adequate. on M X Motion was made to deny Variance No. 1.078 with As X X X X the following findings for denial, which MOTION Noes Y CARRIED: Absent FINDINGS: 1.. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in these applications which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings, and or uses.in the same.district. The lots are of adequate size to design structures with the required open space provided as established in Section 20.11.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applican 3. That the granting of such application will, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the • applicant and will under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental -9- - September. 18, 1980, City of Newport Beach MINUTES to the public welfare or injurious to proper or improvements in the neighborhood... By not providing the required open space within the first 12 feet behind the front yard setback, the visual character of the neigh- borhood will be adversely impacted. Motion Motion was made to deny Variance No. 1079 with Ayes X X X the following findings for denial, which MOTION Noes X CARRIED: Absent FINDINGS: 1. That there are no exceptional or.extraordinar circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to. in these applications whic circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings, and or uses in the same district. The lots are of adequate size to design structures with the required . open space provided as established in Section 20.11.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 2. That the granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment. of substantial property rights of the applica 3. That the granting of such application will, under the circumstances of the. particular case,.material-ly affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property.of the applicant and will under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to propert or improvements. in the neighborhood.. By not providing the required-open space within the first 12 feet behind, the front yard setback, the visual character of the neigh- borhood will be adversely impacted. Commissioner Beek again suggested that the Com- mission consider rezoning the R -3 and R -4 lots in the "Peninsula to R -2, and to direct the staff to devise an amendment to accomplish this. Staff .asked if the Corona del Mar area was.to be in- cluded.in this. Commissioner Beek stated that he was only referring to the Peninsula. -10- September 18, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker asked if the intent was to reclassify those lots which can not suppor a structure larger than .a duplex. Commissioner Balalis stated that the intent is to treat the lots in the same manner, regardless of where they are. He stated that the Commission may.be creati some hardships by down zoning the property in cas where an individual may.want to combine the lots. He also stated that he would like the staff to bring buck the definition.of a two unit structure Commissioner Beek stated that he would like the staff to consider the possibility of combining R -2 lots to build combined structures having the total number of units that would have been`per- mitted on the original lot, but combining them into a single building. The R -2 building restric tions.are more consistent with this intent. Motion K - Motion,was.made for the staff to come back to the Ayes X X X X Commission at a future study-session with re- AQPnt * * commendations for possible rezoning of'R -3 and R -4 lots to the R -2 District. * * * Request to permit a drive -up teller facility in conjunction with the Manufactures Bank use in an existing office building in Newport Place. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map R.T.S. 7197; Resubdivision No. 585, located at 1201 Dove Street o.n the west side of Dove Street at the westerly terminous of Newport Placr.Drive. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Manufactures Bank, Los A-ngeles OWNER: The Great -West Life Insurance Company, Winnepeg, Maitoba, Canada INDEX SE PERMI PROVED COMMISSONERS1 September 18, 1980 I I I LN- Cit t e y of Newport Bach MINUTES INDEX The public* hearing was opened in connection with this.item and Mr.. Tim Peralta appeared before the Commission and stated that they were in agreement with the recommendation of the staff report. Commissioner Thomas stated that he had recently received from the Air. Resources Board recommen- dations in which the City can reduce air pollu- tion-. They recommend the elimination of drive - up bank windows and drive--up tellers because this will discourage a large number of cars.idling. He added that this.is a progressive idea for the Commission.to start considering. Commissioner Beek'suggested that the applicant put a si.gn next to the drive -up lane, advising their patrons to wait with their engines turned off. Chairman Haidinger duly suggested this to the applicant. Mo ion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission A* X X X X approve Use Permit No. 1.954 with the following Absent * f.ind.ings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS:. That the proposed development is in confor- mance with the General Plan and the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. A.dequate off street parki -rig spaces will be provided for the proposed office building and bank facilities. 3. Adequate provisions for traffic circulation are being made for the drive-:in.-teller facility. 4. That the proposed development will not have any-significant environmental impact. 5. The City Traffic Engineer has no objections with the applicant's request. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1954, which • permits a drive -up teller facility in the -12- 1MISSIONERS September 18, 1980 MINUTES 111111 City of Newport Beach Manufactures Bank 'will not, under the cir- cumstances of this case be detrimental to the - health, safety, peace,.morals, comfort, and. general welfare of persons residing and workir in the neighborhood or be detrimental or in- jurious to property and improvements_in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 1. That development shall be ih. substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan. 2. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of the Newport Place Planned Community Devel- opment Standards. However, directional signs such as "Entrance ", "Exit ", or other similar convenience signs located_on the Dove Street frontage, as opposed to any signs which may be`locat.ed in the common parking lot, shall • not include the name or logo of the bank use. * * * Request to expand a non - conforming medical office Item #6 so as to permit the conversion of .an existing- residential apartment into a dentist's office JSE PERMT' on prdperty located in the_ R -1 District. 5 LOCATION: A. portion of Lot 18, Newport. tinued Heights Tract, located at 601 o on tinuedi Irvine Avenue on the northwesterly 9 1980 corner of Irvine Avenue and 15th. ' Street in Newport Heights. ZONE - R -1 APPLI -CANT: Raymond J. Dern, M.D., Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Motion X Motion was made to continue this item to the Ayes X X X X Planning Commission Meeting of October 9,. 1980, . Ab nt * as per the applicant's request so as.to allow additional time to re- design the existing .off -., street parking layout, which MOTION CARRIED... * * * -13- • 0 September 18, 1980 of Newport Beach . MINUTES Request..to change and expand an existing breakfas lunch, and dinner restaurant with live entertain- ment to a nighttime and weekend restaurant - theatr complex with live entertainment. The proposal also includes the request for tandem parking spaces and valet service for a portion of the re- quired parking spaces in the adjoining Lido Marin Village parking structure and in other related offstreet parking lots. LOCATI.ON: A portion of Lot 2, Tract No. 1117, located at 3505 Via Oporto, on the " southeasterly corner of Central Avenue and Via Oporto, in the Lido Marina Village. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Bob Inch, Newport Beach OWNER Lido Marina Village, Newport Beach Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that if the use permit request is approved, Condition No. 5 of the staff report should read as follows: "That should the.Bay Lido Building or Newport Florist be sold,. or Newport Boulevard widened, an off -site parking agreement shall. be obtained for those required parking spaces, so that adequate parking is maintained for the pro- posed use." The reason for the addition is that some of the.parking for both the Bay Lido.Build -. ing and the_Newport Florist is actually in the public right -of -way._ In the event Newport Boule- vard is widened, there would be approximately six to ten spaces removed., Commissioner Beek asked staff to explain what would-happen if the buildings.were sold, in light of the parking situation. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Bay Lido Building, the Newport Florist and the Arco Station are.located, across the street from the parking structure. These properties have been developed architectur- ally and signed in the exact manner of Lido Marin -14- LY September 18, 1980 m S City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III [III I INDEX Village.. Therefore, the staff.felt that in the event these properties were sold in the future, the parking spaces that would be lost would have to be replaced and supported by an off -site parking agreement as opposed to the initial ap- proval which would treat them as being on -site parking spaces and part of the original developmen . Commissioner Thomas asked staff where the-other restro6m facilities were located in Lido Marina Village and if the elimination of the .restroom as noted on -Page No.. 4, Paragraph No. 3 of the staff report, will create a problem. Planning Director Hewicker stated that restroom facilities and locker storage facilities are also located.*, between the structures on the water side of the property. Mr. Bill Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, stated that the elimination of the restroom facility creates a problem in that it is. presently being utilized by the office tenants on the second floor of the building. Approval of • the use permit would permit said restroom facility to be located within the interior of the proposed restaurant, thereby eliminating its use by.other tenants in the building. Commissioner Thomas asked if this restroom had significant public use. Mr. Laycock responded that it is primarily utilize by the tenants within the building. Commissioner Cokas asked if the proposal was to add restroom facilities on the second floor for the.existing use. Mr. Laycock stated that this would have to be discussed with the applicant to determine if there are existing plumbing fixtures in the walls. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Bob Inch, Director of Operations in Lido Marina Village, appeared before the Com- mission-and stated that they are in agreement with the staff recommendations, including the amendment recommended by staff.. Mr. Inch stated that there are nine other sets of restrooms in the Village, including one restroom at the entrance of the main parking structure which i.s accessible to anyone. The proposed development will take in all but •one office space on the second floor of the -15- COMMISSIONERS x v ROLL CALL September 16, 1980 of Newr)ort Beach MINUTES . INDEX structure. At the time this office was developed a restroom was planned for, but was not fixtur- ized because the funds were not available. This would be an opportune time to fixturize the rest - toom. Mr. Inch added that they would allow them to tie into their lines when development begins. Commissioner Beek asked if this proposed develop- ment was affiliated with the Magic Castle in Hollywood. Mr. Inch stated that this development is not affiliated with the Magic Castle, but hope fully will be competitive with it. He also state that it will be done in an Egyptian motif with the best caliber of magic entertainment in the world. Chairman Haidinger asked Mr. Inch if he-would accept a change to Condition No. 5 that if any of these other properties are sold, the use permit would be brought back to the Planning.Commission for reconsideration. Mr. Inch stated that with • this night time application, there is plenty of parking available. He stated that they also have a lot on 32nd Street where additional parking spaces are provided. Mr. Inch responded to the comment that concerned the li.kelihood of the properties being sold. He stated that the owner .has been in the property management business for over twenty years and has never sold any of the developments. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the night time parking was lots at the Newport Florist or the Bay Lido Building, it is conceivable that the 32nd Street parking lot could be used by their employees. This would clear out additional parking in the structure for the patrons. Com- missioner Beek asked how the parking structure is operated. Mr. Inch stated that a fee is charge for parking in the structure, and there will also be a valet parking service available in front of the club at night. Mr. James.Brown, representing the tenant on the second floor, appeared before the Commission. IIIIII11 -16- 1MISSIONERS September 18,_ 1980 City p of Newport Beach MINUTES Mr. Brown stated that if the.public restroom fact lity is..removed, the tenants of the building will have no immediate restroom facility to use. He stated that copies of the building plan he has indicate that there are no plumbing outl,e.ts or access pipe on the second floor. The closest restroom. facility would be located across the street. He stated that he was. informed by an employee of the management company that the rest - room facilities in the parking structure were reserved, locked restrooms for the employees of the ma.nagement.company. These restrooms are not labelled and are always found to be locked.. Mr. Brown also stated that the public restroom to be abolished is the only handicapped equipped facility in the Village. He.stated that of the eight remaining restrooms,.four have access only be a flight of stairs; the other four.are single unit restrooms and do not contain facilities for the handicapped. • Mr. Brown also stated that the fire exit problem will be taken care of if new doors are put in from the remodelled restaurant in the parking structure. This will necessitate boring holes through the reinforced concrete wall. Also.,.this remodel will necessitate tremendous levels of noise, which may exceed the standards of Cal OSHA and that of the local health and safety code.. Me. Ed Migge, of Orange Coast Developers, owners of Via Lido Plaza; appeared before the Commission Mr..Migge asked where the 21 to 24 employees of the proposed development will be parking.. He stated that the parking spaces that will be lost when Newport Boulevard is widened should not be included in the parking requirement.count for thi development. He stated that if a problem regard- ing the parking should arise from the granting of this use permit, he would like to know what re- course is available to them to resolve it. Mr. Migge also stated that the Village restrooms are not always unlocked and by granting this use.per- mit they should be required to be unlocked. R... M 0 E September 18;,1980 ty of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Migge to explain his concerns regarding the parking situation of the proposed development. Commissioner Balalis state that many people find parking in the Via Lido Plaza lot more accessible to the Village than.the parking structure in the Village itself. Mr. Migge stated that most people would rather park i an open space than a parking structure and people would rather park free than to pay. This has pre sented us a problem in the. past. Planning Director He-wicker stated that the parkin for the employees i provided for in the required parking as specified for the restaurant. Mr. Migge stated that they also have a problem with the valet parking of the Village. Planning Dir- ector Hewicker stated that this be taken up with with the valet operator or the operator of Lido Village. Commissioner Balalis stated that this may even:be in violation of the use permit. Mr. Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated_ that signs can be erected to restrict parking to. the patrons of.a particular development by the private property owner: He added that if the signs contain the proper information, the car in. violation can be towed away, pursuant to the Vehicle Code. Mr. Migge stated that they have the.proper signs in their lot, along with a.guard on duty, but this still presents a problem. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Inch if the rest- room facilities for the patrons of the Village remain unlocked. Mr. Inch stated that the Village does provide.unlocked restroom facilities for their patrons. He stated that the restroom facility ad- jacent to the parking spaces in the parking struct re was locked at times,but that the key can be obtain ?d from the parking attendant. Commissioner Beek stated that.valet parking in som - one elses lot would seem to be a violation of the law. 'Commissioner Balalis stated that the develop r would be in violation of the use permit if the condition of valet parking is used other than the space.agreed upon. Mr. Inch stated that available parking for this proposed development is located across the street and in the.parking structure. H stated.that it would not make sense to park in the Via Lido Plaza lot because it would be too far awa Im COMMISSICNNERS1 September 18., 1980. 't t Beach � Ci y of Newpor h MINUTES Mr. Ed.Martinez, President of Tiffany - +s Private Club in the Village, appeared before the Commissi Mr. Martinez stated that valet parking is a re- quired condition for the operation of his Club. He stated that it should also be mandatory that the proposed use permit be restricted to valet parking each and every night of operation. Commissioner Beek asked staff if they had any recommendations on the restroom issue. Pla.nning Director Hewicker,stated.that the staff was not aware that the facilities for the stub-out-were not in place. He stated that a condition could be added.providing the availability of additional public restroom facilities in.that area of the Village. He also stated that the Commission may want to consider if the facility should be re- quired to be in place before construction starts on the remodel. 1. The proposed restaurant is consistent with th General Plan, and is compatible with surround • ing land uses. -19- Commissioner Balalis asked if the facility in questi.on is strictly for the use of the upstairs 0 tenant. Staff concurred. Commissioner Balalis stated that this would seem to be a private matte between the tenant and the landlord. Planning Director Hewicker stated that it would have to meet the Uniform Building Code in any event. Commissioner Thomas stated that he was concerned with eliminating the only handicapped facility in the Village. Planning Director Hewicker stated that this will have to flagged for the - Building Division, so when the plan check is made it is. replaced with another facility that meets all of the requirements. Commissioner Balalis,stated that this can also be an added condition to the approval 0 the use permit. Motion Motion.was made that the Planning Commission Ayes X X X approve Use Permit No. .1956 with the following Absent * findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed restaurant is consistent with th General Plan, and is compatible with surround • ing land uses. -19- COMMISSIONERS September 18, 1980 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 2. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact.. 4. That the establishment, mai.ntenance, or.opera tion of the use of the property or:building will not, under the circumstances of .the par - ticular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or wo.rking in the neigh- borhood of such.proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modi- fication-for the tandem parking spaces with valet service is consistent with the legis- lative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. is The approval of Use.Permit No. 1956 will.not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of person: residing and working in the neighborhood or bi detrimental or injurious to property and imr provements i.n the neighborhood or the.general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1.. That devel opment shall be in substantial con - formance, with the approved floor plan, except for the installation of additional fire exits as required. That a minimum of one parking space for each 40 sq. ft. of "net public area" shall be provided for the restaurant and lounge por- tions, and a minimum of one-parking space for each 5 occupants in the stage areas of the restaurant facility shall be provided. 3. That valet parking shall be provided at all. times during the hours of operation of the . proposed restaurant and stage facilities, and such parking shall be provided on pro - perties owned by the applicant. -20- ROLL CALL September 18, .1980 x I W1 GtV of MINUTES 4. That the City Traffic Engineer shall approve the entire.parking plan prior to issuance of any permits. 5. That should the Bay Lido, Building or Newport Florist be sold, or Newport Boulevard widened an off: site parking agreement shall.be ob- tained .or additional -on -site parking spaces shall be provided for those required parking spaces that are eliminated, so that adequate parking is.maintained for the proposed use, and approved by the City's Modification Com- mittee. 6. That all mechanical equipment and the storage of cartons, containers, and trash shall be shielded from view within a building or . within an area enclosed by a.wall or fence._ 7. That the proposed development shall not be • open for business prior to 6:00 p.m., Monday. through Saturday, unless additional parking spaces are provided. 8. That Lido Marina Village.shall provide public handicap restroom facilities on it's premises. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Consideration of proposed Land Use Plan and litem Development Policies for the Local Coastal Program. LOCA INITIATED BY: Th.e City of Newport Beach Chairman Haidinger stated that the.LCP. discussion tonight will primarily cover the August 21st staf report. He stated that at the next.Commission meeting the staff will prepare a complete report • covering the Commissioner's actions to date on the LCP. -21- September 18, 1980 ifink9l Civ of Beach MINUTES Chairman Haidinger stated that straw votes will be taken on those .items Commissioner Balalis and Commissioner Beek can participate in. He stated that in those cases where the Commissioners can not participate, he will give staff direction as to.-what to include in the follow -up report. Mr. Don Atkinson, attorney for William J. Cagney, appeared before the Commission with regard to Page No. 24, Item K of the August 21, 1980 staff report.. He stated that the City has indicated that Mr. Cagney's Southern Pacific Railroad parcel was inadvertently designated as "Recreational & En- vironmental. Open Space." He stated that at the last meeting of the Parks, Beach and Recreation Department, it was unanimously decided to not list this parcel as a potential park site. There- fore, it would be appropriate at this time to change the designations of the City to indicate that this parcel is zoned R -2. Mr. Robert Lenard, • Advance Planning Administrator, stated that this can be accomplished. Direction X Chairman Haidinger directed staff to change the open space designation to "Two- Family Residential" on this..particular parcel. Nancy Kimball of 407 Snug Harbor, appeared before the Commission with .regards to visual access. She presented to the Commission a revised list, in- cluding a map, of significant views she felt the Commission should consider. This included In- spiration Point in Corona del Mar, Eastbluff Remnant (Vista del Oro), Coast Highway near Jam- boree, Castaways from the bluff setback, Irvine Avenue near Santiago, Irvine Avenue near Universit Drive and the County Dock. Sh.e suggested that her list replace the list as found on Page 27 of the draft LCP and in the staff report, as her list is somewhat shorter and more accurate. Mrs. Kimball.also stated that during implementati • standards should.be set up to protect the views, for instance,,75 percent of the view corridors -22- PUBLIC VISU L ACCESS ROLL CALL IMMIUNt" September 18, 1980, s City of Newport Beach MINUTES shall have free and clear visual access which can be accomplished through clustering.the structures, In addition, Mrs. Kimball stated that the view policy as stated on Page No. 4 of the Augyust 21st staff report does not cont.ain.strong enough lan- guage. She stated that it should read, ".Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the .sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and .designee to 'preserve' the coastal view ", rather than to minimize the impact. Planning Director Hewicker asked .if Mrs. Kimball' intent was that to preserve a view, a. development could not be ex'pand'ed upon, or to enlarge in one area, another area could.not be encroached upon. Commissioner Beek stated that Mrs.'Kimball's list of views eliminates many of the views on the • original list, particularly in the Corona del Mar area. Mrs. Kimball stated that when she prepared her list the intent was to specifically preserve Inspiration Point -in the Corona del Mar areal alo with the others. Commissioner Thomas suggested that Ocean Boulevar View be added because of the redevelopment issue. He stated that with the guidelines under the Coastal Act today, if the map was adopted solely, it would not be operative at that point. . Chairman Haidinger suggested that the staff id- entify in their next report the change in policy language to include the word. "pres.erve ".rather than "minimize the impact ". Also;.he suggested . to the staff that they identify the changes that Mrs. Kimball has suggested.. Commissioner Thomas stated that he liked the.con- cept Mrs. Kimball has presented in that she has specified the views and the site and range lines, rather.than putting a blanket statement on the property. He stated that this concept should tie incorpora -ted in the LCP. Commis.si,oner Thomas added that preserving a minimal area does not mea that the view line can not be moved,.as long as -23- CALL September 18, 1.9.80 111,E City of MINUTES the same amount of view area and surface area is preserved. A trade -off policy would be operati over and above the minimal areas identified. Mr. Dave Dmohowski of The Irvine Company appeared before the "Commission: Mr. Dmohowski stated that they are concerned with the wording of the pro- posed policy because it-states that these views would be over private property. He stated that when land use restrictions are ov.erlayed, especia on the Westbay site, very little developable area is "Left. He stated that the public access re- quirements of-the-Bluff Ordinance guarantees public access over virtually every portion of the Bluff end, including pedestrian, bike trait and even 1 "eads the way open for vehicl "e access. Mr. Dmohowski stated that they are urging the Commis- sion to-carefully balance the other environmental considerations asked for in the LCP concerning the public iew rights over private property. • Commissioner Beek suggested that staff include in their list the foTTowing: Ensign View Park and Galaxy Park, which were specifically provided as view sites, and the eastern end of Promontory Point apartment tract, which was specifically Timited to provide a view of the "Balboa Pavilion from Jamboree Road across Coast Highway. Planning Director Hewicker stated that with re- gard to Promontory Point,the Planning Commission placed a condition on the development'.with respec to placing the structure,.but the condition did not limit landscaping. He stated that there has been a problem with the landscape treatment on that corner because the trees have grown, up and obscured the view. Commiss.ioner. Beek stated that the Plan should address this problem to ensure that this view is preserved. Commissioner Beek stated that he would like an inventory of the view assets; including.those in the Corona del Mar area. He also stated that PromontoryPoint should be on the Tist along with staff recommendations-on -how to preserve same. -24- y 1M0MJNtKJ I September 18, 1980. City of Newport Beach MINUTES Mr. Robert Canny of the South'Coa -st Regional Commission appeared before the Commission. He stated that generally, the Commission addresses public views, not private views, and it is a general policy to preserve, protect and enhance these views which should be addressed in the LCP. Commissioner Thomas asked staff for the language contained in the Coastal Act regarding views from public roadways. Ms. Patricia Temple, Senior . Planner, read to the Commission Section 30251,of t Coastal Act which contained the language comcernin views. Direction X Chairman:Haidinger directed staff to identify in their next report the change in policy language to include the word "preserve" rather than "minimize the impact ", and to identify the sug- gested changes of Mrs. Kimball and the Commission- ers including-their additions and deletions. He also directed the staff to be specific in their. • recommendations. * * * "CITY/COUNTY D QCK PROPER Chairman Haidinger noted that Commissioner Balali and Commissioner.Beek can participate in this issue. Commissioner Thomas.asked is up for renewal. Staff will end. in the year 2008 staff when the lease replied that the lease Motion Motion was made that the Commission accept the Ayes X X X X recommendation that the site be designated Absent * "Recreational and Marine Commercial" as is the entire Mariners' Mile area southerly of Coast Highway, which MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Thomas asked staff to explain what public leaseholds the LCP covers. Ms. Temple stated-that the LCP only deals wit,h leases that the City has an interest in. She added that the . City owns a portion of the City /County Dock. -25 CITY/ COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY ROLL CALL • Motion 0 4MISSIONERS September 18, 1480 > City of Newport Beach MINUTES Commissioner Thomas stated that he was concerned with the large piece.of public land that extends beyond.the. dock and what.guidelines and discus - sion were made on same. He also made reference . to the Balboa Peninsula .Point Park which is lease to the Association. Ms. Temple stated that the focus at the Committee level was on the major leases with major developments on them. She stated that the end- street lease is a beach lease which concerns a minimal amount of money and has essentially been shown as open space on the Tand use.plan. She added that half of the area is private and fenced.off and includes a boat launch= ing ramp Commissioner Thomas suggested that the staff come back with additional. information on this matter. PUBLIC PROPERTY LEASEHOLDS Commissioner Beek stated that he would remove himself from this discussion. Chairman Haidinger asked staff if the City Charte requires voter approval for all, public leases. Mr. Burnham stated that voter approval, is needed for new leases,and re= leases in excess of 25 year . X Commissioner Thomas moved for approval of the four policies to.guide the leasing and re- leasing of public properties as recommended by the Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee, including. the recommendation at the August 21st Planning Commission regarding a fair market value policy. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not lik to see every'lease that comes up to be placed on the ballot. He suggested that the leases be kept at three-to four years, so when the public goes to the polls to vo.te for City officials, they can vote on the leases at that time. He added that when the leases are renewed, they should also be kept at a short period of time. -26- UBLIC COMMIS_ S� September 18, 1980 Cit Y p of Newport Beach MINUTES Mr. Dave Dmohowski of The Irvine Company appeared before the Commission . concerning the limitation on the lease term. Mr. Dmohowski stated that in certain cases of City leaseholds, substantial amounts of capital improvements are required in order to make the project usable. After a sub - stantial investment is made by a private interest the leasee would expect.a longer.term use on the property. He stated that they would have no objection to a public hearing or a public vote to extend the lease beyond the.three year -limi- tation. Amendment X Commissioner Balalis amended the motion for the first policy guide to read as follows, "Any new leasing of public lands for private use shall be consistent with policies of the California Coasta Act and shall be limited to no more than three years, unless it is done by voter. approval ". Commissioner Thomas accepted this amendment to his motion. • Mr. Burnham stated that the City Charter contains certain provisions with regard to the 'beach and waterfront. This recommendation may be.incon- sistent with the Charter provisions. Mr. Lenard stated that taking out the language-in the first lease policy referring to the Coastal Act may be poss.ible. Commissioner Balalis stated that it was hi-s intent to include the re- leasing. He stated that it is important to cover any new leasing as well as the renewals. Commissioner Thomas withdrew his motion and Commissioner Balalis withdrew his amendment. Motion X Motion was made to approve the first policy guide Ayes X X X as written: ".Any new leasing of public lands for Noes X private use shall be consistent with policies of Abstain Y the California Coastal Act and shall be subject Absent * * to voter approval." A condition was made that approval be.provided only if it is consistent with the Charter, staff to report back to Commis- sion on this issue. 0 _27- iMISSK NERS September 18, 1980 Cit Y p of Newport Beach MINUTES Motion K Motion was.made to approve the second policy guid Ayes K X X K as written: In the leasing or re- leasing of Abstain X publicly owned land, full consideration shall be Absent * given to the public's right of access to the ocea beach, and bay and to the provision of coastal_- dependent.uses adjacent to the water. Motion K Motion was made to approve the third policy guide Ayes X X K as written: At the time the leases are ne.gotiatec Abstain X or renewed, careful consideration shall be given Absent k to the consistency of the proposed use with the public interest. If a positive determination is made, the property shall be leased at fair market. value, unless it is clearly in the public interest to do otherwise. Motion K Motion was made to approve the fourth policy gui.c with an additional change as follows: All new leases and lease renewals of publicly owned land shall be considered by the City Council at :a.publ hearing and shall be limited to a term of three years; anything longer than three years would be subject to voter approval. Mr. Dave Dmohowski of The Irvine.Company appeared before the Commission and objected to this pro- posal. Mr. Dmohowski stated that in the case of the Balboa Yacht Bas.in facility, in order to bring it up to code would require an investment of several million dollars. With the uncertainty of a possible public election in three years, the company or any other private operator would be unwilling to take the investment risk. The City - may find it quite difficult to operate and obtain reliable revenues from these lea.seholds. He added that the City would not.be willing or capabl to make the physical improvements. that would be necessary for bringing it up to operating conditic Commissioner. Balalis asked Mr. Dmohowski to clari his objections to voter approval. Mr'. Dmohowski stated that they do not.object to.voter approval of any new leasing of public Lands, but do. object to voter approval of renewals, which have already • been found to be consistent with the.Coastal Act. He added that voter approvals of renewals would b creating hardships for both the leasee and the Ci ago is 0 .September 18, 1980. City of Beach MINUTES Commissioner.Balalis stated that he can under- stand this concern, but at the same time, re- strictions are being put on other property owners that are not leasing facilities from the City. Chairman Haidinger stated.that a public vote is clearly an uncertainty. He stated that a leasee could not obtain financing or do anything signi- ficant with a piece of property for only three years. He added that possibly the City Council should continue to approve these leases for a period of 25 years. Commissioner Thomas stated that the private pro- perty owner bears the burden Act. With public property, to endorse previous mistake.s leases at sub - marginal ra.tes public land and public facil supply. Chairman Haidinger public lands should meet all private lands. under the Coastal We can not continue like long.term and especially when ities are in short stated that possibly the requirements of Commissioner Balalis stated that if the City would want to consider moderate income .housing boat marinas, boat yards, etc., the City should first of all take a look at its own propert.ies before telling other property owners what they will have to. provide. Chairman Haidinger stated that the time period to be considered must be a financeabl.e amount of time. Commissioner, Thomas stated that no regulation last's-forever-in light of the rising market values, but flexi.bility needs to be built into the system so that we can meet public needs when the economics do .not. Mr. Dmohowski stated that they are not asking for any relief from the land use.or development stan- dards of the LCP. Simply, we are asking for reasonable assurance that we can use the property with uses consistent with the LCP, for'a.period longer than 3 to 5.years. He stated that they are requesting a financeable period of time, con - sidering the substantial amount of private invest ments needed to bring the facilities up to Code, possibly a 10 to 15 year period. -29- COMMISSIONERS September 18, 1980 IM . MINUTES Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing The.Irvine Company, commented on the proposed policy..No. 4 regarding the maintaining of the existing number of mobile home units in the City." Mr..,Dmohowski stated that .there is an existing mobile home_ facility on the Castaways property which is designated for retail and visitor serving uses. He stated that they would object to maintaining the mobile home facility in that location or operating an equivalent number of mobile homes at another location in the City. He stated that they are willing to accept the inclusionary or affordable housing requirement by the Coastal Commission, but do not believe that . affordable housing is best met through mobile homes, . He stated that the costs associated with operating a new mobile home facility precludes the aspect .of affordability. Planning Director Hewicker suggested that the policy be.modified to provide that where existing mobile homes provide a source of moderate and low • income housing, that they would not be replaced -30- Le City of New Wt Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes Y Motion by Commissioner Balalis was then voted Noes X X on, which MOTION FAILED. Abstain X Absent I * X Motion was made to approve the fourth policy guide Motion as written: All new leases and lease renewals of Ayes X X publicly owned land shall be considered by the Noes X City Council at.a public hearing. Abstain X Absent * * * HOUSING HOUSING Commissioner Beek stated that he will. re -enter the discussion at this time. Chairman Haid.inger noted that the text of the September 18th staff report is more definitive than that of the August 21st report. He.stated. • that the Commission will be commenting on. the staff report of September 18th. Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing The.Irvine Company, commented on the proposed policy..No. 4 regarding the maintaining of the existing number of mobile home units in the City." Mr..,Dmohowski stated that .there is an existing mobile home_ facility on the Castaways property which is designated for retail and visitor serving uses. He stated that they would object to maintaining the mobile home facility in that location or operating an equivalent number of mobile homes at another location in the City. He stated that they are willing to accept the inclusionary or affordable housing requirement by the Coastal Commission, but do not believe that . affordable housing is best met through mobile homes, . He stated that the costs associated with operating a new mobile home facility precludes the aspect .of affordability. Planning Director Hewicker suggested that the policy be.modified to provide that where existing mobile homes provide a source of moderate and low • income housing, that they would not be replaced -30- 0 0 -2 ".It. � September 18,`1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES unless it could be demonstrated that they were being replaced with housing facilities that pro - vided a dwelling for moderate.and low income people. He stated that a.lot of mobile homes within the City are used..as second homes and some are used as primary residences. He added that.a mobile home being used as a second home does not provide a moderate to low income dwelling. Commissioner Balalis stated that a housing element should be created for the general.plan, as well as the LCP. He stated that the Commission should strive to accomplish a mixture of prices that everyone can afford, to necessarily identifying by name how this is to be accomplished. He states that a double -wide mobile home development is equivalet to a development.of six dwelling units to the acre, which can not be considered affordabl housing. He added that there must be.a mixture of affordable housing including housing for single or elderly people which may have to be. smaller units of higher density, which may or may not be adjacent to the water.. Mr. Robert Canny of the South Coast.Regional Commission appeared before the Commission. Mr. Canny stated that generally the Coastal Act speaks not of full time residents or part time residents, but of housing opportunities. Secondly, the guidelines provide for a one for one replacement, of low or moderate income housing.within the Coast zone, irregardless of the cost of the structure. Commissioner asked Mr. Canny if he considered mobile homes as low income housing. Mr. Canny stated that it would depend on the particular III unit and its location, as the rates vary. Mr.. David Neish,representing Urban Assist, Inc. of Newport. Beach,_appeared before the Commission. Mr.Neish stated that in reviewing the LCP there are five existing locations within the City which state, "The existing number of mobile home spaces shall be maintained by the property owner either on site or at another site in the City of Newport Beach. " - He stated that the Commission may want to remove this particular sente.nce.with regard to the.five areas associated with the housing. -31- ROLL CALL Motion Ayes Noes Absent WISS{ONERS September 18,1980. 9 City of Newport Beach element. He stated that this would be the most appropriate place to insert affordable housing. He stated that a tremendously high percentage of the mobile homes in Newport Beach are used as second homes, particularly the closer the mobile home is to the beach, 'the higher this percentage gets. The City of Newport Beach is unique in that not all mobil.e home units can be considered affordable housing. MINUTES Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the City will be acquiring right -of -way consisting of 10 to 12 spaces in the West.Newport and De Anza trailer parks because of two highway widening projects. He stated that some consi- deration should be given on public projects, as policy guideline number four could create a hardship. Chairman Haidinger stated that he would like to eliminate the mobile home retention policy. Com- missioner Balalis stated that a statement should . be made that the City shall encourage the devel- opment of affordable housing through a bonus mean of increased density. Commissioner Thomas stated eliminate the condominium He stated that based upon of the Commission, there i conversion .law or a policy stock. Motion was made to minium conversions t motion carried. Motion X. Motion was made to Ayes X X X Ito also delete the Absent * identified on the individual mobile 0 that he would like to conversion references. the previous actions s not a condominium to maintain.the rental remove the references of condo from the draft policy, which_ delete policy item No. 4 and individual references as August 21st staff report on home parks, which motion Carrie -32- September 18, . 1980 11111111 Ci" f MINUTES Motion X Motion was made that the City shall encourage the development of affordable housing in the Coastal zo.ne by providing incentives such as density bonuses to accomplish that means • Ayes Noes Absent Motion Ayes Noes Absent Commissioner Beek stated that Commissioner Balali is making a constructive effort to approach the problem, but that he is dissatisfied with the entire housing section. He'stated that many affluent people live in Newport Beach, but the people who perform the service functions need low cost or affordable housing in the City. He added that sub - standard,inadequate housing at a low cost in the Coastal zone is not a proper solution to the problem. To address the problem constructively, he stated that the businesses which will be employing the low.paid employees, hotels for example, should have to subsidize housing for those employees. Employee housing rather than affordable housing would be a prefer- able term. Commissioner Balalis stated that there are those residents of.the City already living in the City_ who possibly are retired and can not afford to move elsewhere. He stated that his motion would provide the means for those people to have a dwelling, but not necessarily a mobile home. Motion by Commissioner Balalis was then voted on, which motion carried. X Motion was made to adopt the balance of the sec - X X X tion on housing with the changes incorporated by the Commission, including changing, the specific * nature of the definition, and deleting the refer- ence to condominium conversion. Commissioner Thomas stated that he concurred with Commissioner Beek's comments on the housing element and low income housing in Newport Beach. * * • 11111111 -33 C MISSONERSI September 18, 1960 MINUTES Gt Beach v of New ort p h Mr: Dan Daniels of Ardell Investment Company ap- peared before the Commission and stated that they own property on Coast Highway, Ardell Marina and Carlos Restaurant, which is affected by the re- creational and marine commercial designation. He stated that their principal business at that location is yacht sales and requested that yacht sales be listed in addition to boat sal.es under water related uses on Page 39..of the draft LCP. He stated that there are yacht brokers offices in their development as well as approximately 1600 sq. ft. of general offices for use by the Ardell Investment Company.. • I I I I I I I 1 -34- RECREATIONAL AND MARINE COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION RECRE- ATIONAL AND Commissioner Beek and Commissioner Balalis stated MARINE that they would not be participating in this discussion. Chairman'H.aidinger stated that the discussion_ would be referring to the August 21st staff report. Mr. William Blurock.appeared before the Commission and referred to the Positive Action Team Position. Paper Number 3. Mr. Blurock stated that the quantity and manner of direction is not in pro- portion with the existing use of the land and its potential use. He suggested that the visitor serving uses and water orientated uses should. be grouped together, or eliminate the basis of proof of burden on the owner by the use permit • process. He stated that a compromise such as this needs to be considered. He stated that not only should new property be considered; but the re -use, rehabilitation or the changing of a business needs to be considered. He added that if every change creeds to be on a use permit, •it will be encouraging people to make illegal changes A process needs to be developed which is easy and logical. Mr: Dan Daniels of Ardell Investment Company ap- peared before the Commission and stated that they own property on Coast Highway, Ardell Marina and Carlos Restaurant, which is affected by the re- creational and marine commercial designation. He stated that their principal business at that location is yacht sales and requested that yacht sales be listed in addition to boat sal.es under water related uses on Page 39..of the draft LCP. He stated that there are yacht brokers offices in their development as well as approximately 1600 sq. ft. of general offices for use by the Ardell Investment Company.. • I I I I I I I 1 -34- September 18, 1980 5, � � � V y W1 City of Newport Beach MINUTES Mr. Daniels stated that their property is somewhat undeveloped, and if the existing language of the LCP is adopted, their property would then be un- conforming. A provision should be included to allow existing uses to be relocated within the same piece of .property. He stated that this would make room for replacement of dilapidated buildings and also addition of visitor serving uses. Chairman Haidinger stated that his interpretation of boat sales would include yacht sales. Staff concurred. Mr. Lenard stated that at the last hearing of the LCP Advisory Committee, it was determined that boats sales were an out right per- mitted use under the recreational and marine com- mercial designation and yacht clubs were removed from waterfront - related uses to permitted uses. At the same time yacht clubs were changed, boat sales were changed from a first priority use to a second priority use. • Chairman Haidinger stated that some of Mr. Daniels concerns are unfounded because the office space needed to support these uses would be acceptable with the primary use of the facility. Also, in the event the office was rebuilt and remained a boat sales or yacht sales facility, it would be in conformance, subject to the requirements of a use permit. Chairman Haidinger asked staff how use permits would be handled which are not a first priority use when the business uses change. Mr. Lenard stated that this is a problem under the existing Zoning Ordinance when business uses change. The Department reviews business licenses, and in in- stances.when the change in use may be inconsistent with the Zoning Code, the case is flagged and a use permit is required. Mr. Robert Canny of the South Coast Regional Commission stated that as a general guideline the LCP regulations speak in terms of the kinds, locations, and intensities of uses. • I I( I .I I I -35- September 18, 1980 X W City of Newport Beach MINUTES Commissioner.Thomas asked ,staff how the use permi process would effectively restrict the priority of uses. Mr. Lenard stated that when an existing coastally- ..dependent use would be replaced, con= sideration would have to be made. if the applicant can demonstrate that the demand for the existing coastally - dependent use no longer exists or is being sa.ti.sfied adequately.elsewhere in Newport Harbor. Chairman Haidinger stated that he felt that these provisions were too restrictive. Mr. Blurock stated that the water related land is close to build -out. He stated that the process of all secondary uses having to go through the use permit process will be a burden on everyone. Mr. John Curci of Newport Beach appeared before the Commission and stated that he is concerned • with the definition of coastally- dependent uses. Mr. Curci stated that the definition is very specific in.the Act which states "those uses which must be on the water to function at all." He stated that fuel docks, ferry boats, fishing piers, access to water for boat yards, or charter operations would fall in this category. All othe uses would not be a coastally - dependent use, it may be a coastal related use, or a coastal desire use. If this definition is used for a coastally - dependent use, then those coastally- dependent uses would have first priority and everything else would be subject to a use permit. He stated that a yacht broker is not a coastally- dependent use under the definition, therefore it does not have to be on.the waterfront in order to operate. He s.tated that.the definition is too narrow. A use permit seems appropraite for a major change, but.not every time a tenant changes in a building Mrs. Kimball appeared before the Commission and stated that the LCP really meant coastally- depen- dent uses. Sh.e stated that there must be pro- visions for the uses that.must be on the water to function at all, or these uses may be lost. LJ -36- COMMISSIONERS September 18, 1980 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek asked legal counsel if he had the right;to address the Planning Commission as a member of the community. Mr. Burnham stated that this was correct. Mr. Allan Beek stepped to the podium to address . the Commission'. Mr. Beek stated that only those uses which.can exist only on the waterfront are permissible on the waterfront in the commercial district. The waterfront is already 95 percent committed to residential or other uses which do not satisfy boat yards, fish canneries, or boat rentals. He stated that there is a grea.t in= adequacy of boat and yacht chartering. He stated that boat chartering rather than owning should be encourage in Newport Beach. He added that these are certainly coastally - dependent uses and can not function except on the waterfront. Mr. Beek concluded'by stating that the objective should be to gradually review and phase out those uses which are not coastally - dependent, which are • existing on the waterfront. The use permit pro- cedure in requiring to be water dependent, is entirely appropriate. Chairman Haidinger suggested that staff bring back to the Commission the following alternatives.] 1) -Leave the wording as it stands, except that use permits be required only when moving from what is defined as.a coastally-depen- dent use to a waterfront related use or visitor serving use. 2) Require a use permit for vacant land in any. case, as well as developed land. 3) Add some greater prohibitions in items 1, 2 and 3. Commissioner Thomas stated that another alterna- tive would be straight rezoning based on coast 11 - dependent uses and establishing a goal of mixed types of businesses; coastally - dependent, water related and visitor serving. • IIIIIIII 0 0 September 18, 1980 m y City of Newport Beach MINUTES, Planning Director Hewicker asked Commis.sioner Thomas if his intent was to inventory the water- front sites and identify them as being coastally - dependent, waterfront related or visitor serving and zone them accordingly. Commissioner Thomas stated that his suggestion is to establish a mix of what is needed and rezone accordingly for only coastally- dependent uses. He added that the other areas which are not priority uses, can be inte- grated into the existing system. Mr. Lenard asked Commissioner Thomas if the new zoning or land use designation would be based on the existing uses, or a spot zoning approach. Commissioner Thomas stated that the Coastal Act sets up goals, one of the goals being a mix of these uses.. Commissioner Thomas stated that an optimum mix can be determined based on what there is today„ or based on objective criteria in re- lation to the number of boats, square footage of the waterfront, coastally- dependent boat faciliti and so on. He added that coastally - dependent use must be zoned in order to protect them. Mr. Lenard asked Chairman Haidinger.for clarifi- cation on- Alternative No. 1, if hotels, motels, etc. which currently require use permits would still require a use permit. Chairman Haidinger stated that it was not his intention to eliminate that requirement. Mr. Curci s.tated that Section 30255 of the Coasta Act stated that coastal dependent development shall have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline. Mr. Curci stated that for instance, fish canneries can not be precluded from being allowed there, not that the fish can - nery has to be there. He added that the intent of th.e Act was to allow those uses there, not to tell them they had to be there. Chairman Haidinger stated that it is unlikely that most of these coastally- dependent uses we have talked about would not want to pay the kind of rents Newport Harbor is charging. He added that somehow though, some of these uses need to be kept and this mechanism provides a way. B" INDEX COMMISSIONERS September 18, 1980 MINUTES 3 4 W, I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I INDEX Mr. Blurock stated that most all of this.commer- cial property is used as marina now, whether it be private rental or charter. He stated that sometimes the bulkhead to the street is confused, not the bulkhead into the water. He stated that boatyards,.related desirable uses, and visitor servicing uses are confused in the bulkhead to the street. A healthy mix is what we should be striving for. This is where the confusion of the bulkhead to the street comes in. Visitor serving uses and present uses take up only a percentage of this. He stated that the area directly on the water should not be confused with the wide space of approximately.200 feet between the bulkhead and the street, which will not support all of the water related uses that have been discussed. Commissioner.C.okas stated that it seems that development is being biased in a c.ertain direction. • He stated that if development is bia.sed in the direction of having water dependent developments, then the first option is a good compromise. If a property can not be developed in that manner economically, there are mechanisms for the-appli- cant to go through the City. He stated that he did not see anything here that would prevent someone from developing their pro.perty.on the waterfront. Mr. Lenard asked Chairman Haidinger if the three findings on Page 39 should be left in the redraft of the report. Commissioner Thomas stated that he would like to see some tests on .Item No. 2, where the applicant would be demonstrating that the demand no longer exists. Chairman Haidinger instructed -staff to leave the use permits require- ments as they are. He added that'people can al- ways find a way to get around a test, whereas the Commission can be flexible in their judgement without the tests. Commissioner Beek and Commissioner Balalis re- entered the discussion at this point. • IIIIIIII * ** -39- COMMISSIONERS September 18, 1980 MINUTES Fi! y � N i City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III III I INDEX Commissioner Balalis pointed out that Commission- er Allen's motion at the last meeting having to do with lateral access around the Rhine Channel may be in conflict with the Commission's action tonight. Chairman Haidinger directed staff to analyze the impact of the action and report their findings at the next meeting. Motion Motion was made to continue this public hearing Ayes X jj[jXjjjj X X X on the LCP to 2:00 p.m. on October 9, 1980, which Absent * MOTION CARRIED. * * * Request to consider an amendment to Titles 19 and 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to the mailing of public notices for variance, 'use pe.rmit, zone change and similar applications to occupants and residents of pro - perty within a prescribed distanc.e of a property, • and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. INITIATED BY: The.City of Newport Beach Motion JJ X Motion was made to continue this item to the Ayes X X X X Planning Commission meeting of November 6, 1980, Absent * which.MOTION CARRIED. ADDIT1ON:AL BUSINESS: Item Planning Director Hewicker stated that a Resoluti n needs to be set for a hearing on an amendment per taining to adult entertainment within the City of Newport Beach. AMEND Motion X Motion was made to set for public hearing on Ayes X X X X October 9, 1980, a request to amend Chapter 20 Absent * of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing land use regulations pertaining to the operation and location of adult entertainment uses within the City of Newport Beach, which MOTION CARRIED. -40- vem- f Set for Public HeHearing Oct o 9, 1980. COMMISSIONERS September 18, 1980 MINUTES N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Ayes Absent I • 10 x Chairman Haidi.nger directed staff to make the October 9, 1980 Agenda as light as .possible, in order that the Commission may finish the first round of the LCP. There being no further business, motion was made that the Planning,Commission adjourn at 11:45 p ^9 which MOTION CARRIED. George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City.of Newport Beach