Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/09/1980 (2)REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.: COMMISSIONERS Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. _ Date: October 9., 1980 FIN D w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 0 Motion All Ayes XI XI * IXIAll Present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney 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 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Motion was made to approve the Minutes of July 24 1980, as submitted, with the request by Commis- sioner Thomas that the tapes from the May Planning Commission Meetings be checked for his excused absences. Motion to approve the July 24, 1980 Minutes was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. (In reviewing the tape from the May 8, 1980 meeting it was found that Commissioner Thoma had requested excused absences for the June 19, 1980 and July 10, 1980 meetings which the Commis- sion approved unanimously. The Minutes of May 8, 1980 will reflect this accordingly). Motion Motion was made to approve the Minutes of August All Ayes 7, 1980, as submitted, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion X Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the August 21, 1980, 2:00 p.m. Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting with the following changes: Page 6, Substitute Motion by Commissioner Beek to read, "Substitute motion was made by Commissioner Beek to submit alternatives • to the City Council for their consideration.' -1- APPROVAL OF— 1 IFE M NUTES C MISSIONERS1 October 9, 1980 MINUTES In N W City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Page 8, second to the last paragraph, to include more discussion on the favoring of a signing program for the bike trail. Page 20, Re. -check the motions and the vote tallies that were made. (Revi.ewing the tape indicated that the motions and vote tallies as found in the Minutes on Page 20,-are correct). All Ayes Motion to approve the August 21, 1980, 2 :00 p.m: Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting Minutes with revis ions was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the All Ayes August 21, 1980, 7:30 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting, with the proposed revision to Page 31, first paragraph under Public Property Leaseholds, to reflect more of the discussion of Commissioner . Thomas on the fair market value system and use of funds, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion Y Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the All Ayes September 4, 1980, 2 :00 p.m. Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting with the change to Page 14,, first.paragraph, to delete the wording, "In allowing existing uses to continue ", which MOTION CARRIED. Motion X Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the Ayes X X X X XX September 4, 1980, 7:30 p.m. Planning Commission Abstain X Meeting, with the proposed- revision to Page 42, first paragraph; to expand further on the dis- cussion by Commissioner Thomas on condominium conversion, which MOTION CARRIED• Commissioner Allen.abstained from the voting, as she was absent from the September 4, 1980, 7:30 p.m. meeting. Motion X Motion - was made to approve the Minutes of the Ayes X X X Xk September 18 1980, Planning Commission Meeting, Abstain X X as submitted, which MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Alden and Commissioner McLaughlin abstained from the voting, as they were absent from the September 18 1980,.7 :30 p.m. meeting. Commissioner Beek requested copies of the replace- ment pages of the revised minutes. -2- 0 Motion All Ayes 0 COMMISSIONERS d '� s n October 9, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES Request to consider the revocation of Use Permit No. 1872 which permitted the construction of a two -story single family dwelling and related two -c.ar garage to the rear of an existing com_ mercial.shop in the C -2 District. The approved development also included a modification, to the Zoning Cade that permitted a portion of the re- quired parking spaces to be tandem spaces. LOCATION: Lot 17, Block 331 of the Lancaster's Addition, located at 428 31st Street between Villa Way and Newport Boule- vard in Cannery Village. ZONE: C -2 APPLICANT: Mamie Van Doren, Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Chairman Haiding.er noted that the applicant's appeal was upheld by the City Council in conjunc- tion with the amendme=nt of this use permit. . JJf JJJJ Motion was made to withdraw the Revocation of X X X X X Use Permit No. 1872, which MOTION CARRIED. Request to expand a nonconforming medical office so as to permit the conversion of "an existing residential apartment into a dentist's office on property located in the R -1 District. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 18, Newport Heights Tract, located at 601 Irvine.Avenue on the northwesterly corner of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street in .Newport Heights ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Raymond J. Dern, M.D., Newport.Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant -3- INDEX Item #1 evocation. THDR IT w S' 9 ppx, 0 0 October 9, 1980 MeI s'. Planning Director Hewicker presented the back- ground information on this case. MINUTES The Public Hearing was opened in conjunction with this item and Dr. Raymond Dern, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Dr. Dern stated that when he purchased the building in 1971, it was represented to him by the seller and the agent that the building.had been approved with structural alterations as a non - conforming building consisting of a docto•rls office and two apartments. He stated that based on this infor= mation back in 1971; he purchased the property and invested a substantial amount of money on improving and upgrading the building. He stated that he is proposing to expand the medical office into the downstairs apartment. He'stated that he services geriatric patients and his son -in -law performs geriatric dentistry. He stated that by performing -a professional use in one of the units he would return the building to its legal non -con forming use, which it had at the time of annexa- tion. Carolyn Fisher, property owner adjacent to Dr. Dern, presented a petition to the Commission with 15 signatures in opposition to the proposed use permit, along with other letters of opposition. The petition stated, "We the undersigned,.are opposed to putting in a medical complex at.the corner of 15th Street and Irvine." Fifteen signa tures -and respective addresses followed. Mrs. Fisher stated that only three property owners within.300 feet of the property were notified of this proposed change. Commissioner Beek stated that he can understand Mrs. Fisher's concern of expanding a non-conform- ing-use.. He asked Mrs- Fisher if she is also objecting to the traffic.that may be generated from this use. Mrs. Fisher stated that she is not aware of a traffic problem due to the present use, but if the medical practice becomes success ful, .there will certainly be increase in the traffic generation. She stated that the traffic: at. the intersection of 15th Street and Irvine Avenue is bad enough now. INDEX COMMISSIONERS October 9, 1980 Gtv of Newport Beach MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker stated that in additio to the public notices of hearing sent to the applicant and the Newport Heights Association, 40 notices of hearing were sent to surrounding property owners. Mr. Keith Hosfiel appeared before the Commission in oppositi.on and stated that he plans to build his new.home at 611 Irvine Avenue. He stated that there is already a traffic problem with this use. He also stated that he objects to the. landscaping being taken away from the front of the building. Mrs. Marianne Barnett, resident of Newport Height since 1951, stated that this proposed: use will cause a traffic and parking problem. She stated that Newport Heights is a residential area and should remain one. • Others appearing in opposition were Mr. Doug Safoli of 620 Michael Place, stating that it woul not be in the best interest of the neighborhood . to have a non- residential use; and Mrs. Mildred Chaper of 527 Irvine Avenue; stating that the area is R -1 and does not want the R -1 District encroached upon. She also mentioned the serious traffic problem at the intersection in question. Commissioner Beek asked staff if the existing.non- conforming medical use can continue in perpetuity. Planning Director Hewicker stated that this was correct, as .long as it is not considered to be abandoned. Commissioner Beek asked if another dentist could share the existing space. Planning Director Hewicker stated that-this was correct; but that the expansion of the, nonconforming use requires approval of the use permit. Mr. Hosfiel stated that there .should be an in- vestigation of the medical building and two . - apartment units. Planning Director Hewicker stated that as indicated in the background in- formation, the applicant is entitled to the one dwelling unit, but that this issue will require • further research for additional evidence. -5- C MISSIONERS1 October 9, 1980 MINUTES W, N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Dr. Dern appeared in rebuttal and stated that the term "medical complex" may not be appropriate as he is only requesting expansion of the medical office. He stated that the building is located on a very noisy.intersection and would like to. eliminate the residential uses, so that it can be of a daytime use only. He stated that the resi- dential appearing characteristics of this building Will not be changed by this proposal. He added that the landscaping has grown considerably and that the parking requirements have been met for the additional space. He stated that the building serves as a buffer between the Newport Harbor High School and two commercial type -uses located on the s.outher.l.y side of 15th Street.; He added that this request would be asset to the area. Commissioner Beek asked Dr. Dern if.he resided at this location. Dr. Dern stated that he did not reside at this l.ocation, but at one time part of • his family did. Commissioner Balali.s asked staff for the total square footage of the proposed use, exclusive of. the apartment use. Staff replied that the medical offices will.be 1473 square feet; the apartment is 440 square feet; and, the attached two-car-garage is 540 square feet. Commissioner Balalis asked staff to explain. -the parking requirements for this project: Staff repl.ied that the proposed expansion of the pro - fessional office use and the subsequent terminatio of the.ground floor residential floor space, will require a total of 7 parking spaces, 6 parking. spaces for the 1473 square feet of office area and 1 parking space .for the remaining portion of the existing residential unit. The parking re- quirement for the residential unit is based on its pre - existing nonconforming requirement of one parking space per dwelling unit. Commissioner Balalis added that the applicant can provide the 7 parking spaces, but can not provide the land- scaping with the setbacks. • 11111111 -6- COMMISSIONERS October 9, 1980 MINUTES 3 y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion X Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 1955 with the findings of denial of the staff report as stated in Exhibit "A ". Amendment K Amended motion was made to revise the wording o.f Exhibit "A" as follows: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed office expansion involves a nonconforming land use of greater intensity than the previous nonconforming residential land use. 2. That the proposed expansion will require a greater amount of parking than is required for the existing use. 3. That the existing medical office use and the proposed dental office expansion are incon- sistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 4. That the proposed expansion of the existing medical office will under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood and shall be detrimental and injurious to the residential character of the neighborhood. Acceptance X Gommissi.oner McLaughlin accepted the amendment to her motion. Ayes X X X X X Amen.ded.moti.on was then voted on, which MOTION Noes X CARRIED. The.Planning Commission recessed at 8:25 p.m, and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. -7- 7 N x N ROLL CALL October 9, 1980 Of 1 • Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot in the R-1-District of Corona del Mar which exceeds 1:5 times the buildable area of the site and.provides less than the required open space. LOCATION: Lot 2, Block A33, Corona del Mar Tract located at 2704 Cove Street on the northerly side of Cove Street.between.Way Lane and Fern- leaf Avenue in China Cove. MINUTES ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Spangler, 5hachtman & Assoc.,. Newport Beach OWNER: Frank and Evalyn Frost, New Jersey • Planning Director Hewicker stated that originally, the open space option on this case was calculated at slightly less ,than what is required by the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the staff has since recalculated the open space option with the applicant.using more accurate drawings, which .determined that it is approximately 200 cubic feet over the open space option requirement. Therefore, the open space option is no. longer an is.sue on this case and any motion the Commis- sion may make on this case; should delete any reference to the open space option requirement with amended wording. INDEX Item #3 VARIANCE NO. 1080 DENIED Planning Director Hewicker stated that with re- gard..to.the buildable square footage of the structure, he felt that a single family dwelling of less than 2,000 square feet is a rather small. dwelling unit. However, he stated.that the particular requirement of the floor area on this particular lot has varied in the. past due to jurisdiction and zoning requirements. He stated that until recently, the property under the City's Ordinance had a 2 times the buildable area requir - ment which would have allowed the applicant to • build what is proposed without the necessity of a Variance. But, in the last several years, this MC COMMISSIONERS1 October 9, 1980 y City of Newport Beach MINUTES . property has been under the dual jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission which has had a requiremen of 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The Coastal Commission has since begun to relax this requirement. However, within the last six months the City has changed their zoning regulations to reflect the standard of 1.5 times the builable area in O.ld Corona del Mar. He stated that there has been building activity in China Cove over the last several years which have been built out at 2 times the:buildable area. He stated that the staff report map has attempted to identify the lots of similar depths and.widths'as that of the applicant, to indicate what-has been built in the area. The Public Hearing was opened in conjunction with this item and Mr. Richard Hogan, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested an additional five minutes for his presentation. Chairman Haidinger granted Mr. Hogan his request. Mr. Hogan quoted to the Commission the justification for granting a variance from the Ordinance, which states, "Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships and results inconsistent with the general purpose of this Title may result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof, a variance may be granted as provided in this Chapter." Mr. Hogan stated that they believe that the results from a 1.5 times buildable area would be inconsistent with the general purpose of the Title. He stated that the variance requested would permit a single family, two bedroom home of a total floor area of 2156 square .feet, including the garage. The per - mitted area would be 1620 square feet under the 1.5 times buildable area requirement. Mr. Hogan stated that in comparing this lot with all the R -1 Di'.strict lots in Corona del Mar, there are:exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building and use referred to in the application, which circumstances and conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district. He stated that this is one of the grounds for grant- ing a variance in the Municipal Code. -9- )MMISSIONERS October 9, 1980 MINUTES; �D H w City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Hogan stated that the normal size lot in the R -1 District in Corona del.Mar consists of 3540 square feet. He stated that..the.lot in question consists of 1800 square feet, which would make this lot exceptional in comparing it to the normal size lot. Exceptional circumstances is the basis for.granting a va- riance, which would give a reasonable living area for the applicant to live in. In referring to the map in the staff report, Mr. Hogan stated that the area is changing from summer vacation homes to permanent residences. Mrs. Evalyn Frost, the owner, appeared before the Commission.and stated that her family has owned this lot in China Cove since 1930. She stated that it became her parents permanent residence in 1949. She also stated that she and her husband have purchased this lot from her parents and want to build their.permanent residence on the lot. She stated that the house was originally built • as a summer beach house and is very old, the plumbing is very bad and there is only a one car garage. She stated that having only a one car garage and parking a car on the driveway poses a safety hazard to the many people and children walking to the beach. She stated that they are proposing a two bedroom house and a two car garage because this would suit their lifestyle better because their children are now grown. Mr. Hogan urged the Commission to accept the findings as found in Exhibit B of the staff repor with the references-to the open space requirement deleted, since the open . space requirement has been met. In response to a question by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Hogan stated that an additional parking space to the existing house, would be one parking space over the limit. He added that the concern is with the interior of the house and the liveability of the house. The exterior meets all the criteria . of the 1.5 times buildable area. Commissioner Beek stated that in. compiling a survey on the square footage of houses, number of -10 COMMISSIONERS( October 9, 1980 w 3 � �D In y City of Newport Beach MINUTES bedrooms, and what is considered to be a minimal, small, average; large or luxury sized house, he found that an average size two bedroom house consists of 1231. square. feet of interior. area. He stated that in considering this case with a building of 1.5 times the buildable area.which would be 1620 square feet, less the two car garage .of 370 square feet, woul -d leave 1250 squar feet, which would be larger. than the average two bedroom house. He stated that he does not find that there 'is a hardship in requiring the appli- cant to conform to the 1.5 criteria with a 1250 square foot house. Commissioner Beek stated that the .architect has not seemed to work with this intent in mind, in that the square footage .- available has not been utilized because the pro= - posed three story house wastes the extra space on stairs. Commissioner Beek stated that the 1.5 criteria • has been quite successful in areas of Newport Beach. He stated that by redesigning the house, a very-liveable house can be* developed using the 1.5 criteria. Motion X Motion was made to deny.Variance No. 1080 with the following findings for denial: FINDINGS: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinar circumstances applying to the land, building .or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district. The lot is of adequate size to design a structure within the require 1.5 criteria. 2. That the granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. • 3. That the granting of such.application, will - under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health -11 C MISSIONERS1 October 9, 1980 MINUTES -1 w qp �� mD R X W = City of Newmt Beach ROLLCALLI 111 Jill I INDEX or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will, under the circumstances of the particular aa.se be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to p.roperty or improvements in the neighbor- hood. Commissioner Thomas stated that he is concerned with setting a precedence in this area by grant- ing this variance. He stated that according to the map in.the staff report, there are other small lots, therefore this lot can hot be con - sidered a hardship. The hardship may be created by building a large house on a small lot. Commissioner Balalis stated that when the 1.5 criteria was developed, the Coastal Commission spoke of it as a means of cutting down the den- sity which usually meant bedrooms. He made • reference to the lot dimensions in the Corona del Mar area and stated that there may be a hardship. He stated that.a two-bedroom house built over the 1.5 criteria, will not be detri- mental to the quality of life or.the neighborhood of the area. He added that if the applicant takes this proposal to the Coastal Commission, it is quite possible that they will approve it, because the Coastal Commission is currently approving in excess of the 1.5 criteria. Commissioner Thomas asked Commissioner Balalis how the other small lots in the area should be treated.. Commissioner Balalis stated that.many of the lots in the area have already been built at 2 times the buildable area and some at less than that, depending on the needs of the indivi- dual case. He stated that this is not a tract house area and the individual needs must be considered. He added that the 1.5 criteria may be good for a large lot; but not necessarily good for a small lot. In order to entice redevelopment in this area, applicants must be entitled to build a liveable house. October 9, 1980 s 51 City of Newport Beach MINUTES I ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 III I I INDEX - 0 Ayes Noes Commissioner Allen agreed with Commissioner Balalis.in principle, but stated.that she has two areas of concern. First, the issue of whether buildable square footage is the appropriate way in which to limit density. She stated that a, percentage, times the buildable area is the cur- rent standard. Second, she stated that the community would be upgraded in allowing long- time concerned residents of the community to build liveable homes. However, she stated that this is not the proper procedure to grant a variance, on the arbitrary basis that a person has lived in the area since childhood. She stated that if this is the case, than perhaps the law of the 1.5 criteria needs to be reviewed. Commissioner Beek stated that this proposal is requesting 536 square feet over and above what the current Code allows. He stated that.the 1.5 criteria was initiated by.the City of Newport Beach which adopted it for Balboa Island, the Coastal Commission did not initiate the criteria. Motion by Commissioner Beek was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Request to consider an amendment. to Chapter. 20 of Item #4 the Newport Beach Municipal Code, establshing land use regulations pertaining to the operation AMENDMENT and location of adult entertainment uses within NO. 551 the City of Newport Beach. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach ] APPROVED Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney,.distributed to the Commission a declaration of the emergency ordinance regarding this subject. He recommended to the Commission to support the emergency pro- vision, which. would go into effect at the next City - Council meeting upon their adoption. Mr. Burnham stated that the City Council adopted . 1 a moratorium in August on the establi shment of adult entertainment enterprises. In the'interim, an adult book store opened at 2930 West Coast Highway, which falls under this definition. -13- COMMISSIONERS1 October 9, 1980 2i n f 5 1 N9 3 City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX. Mr. Burnham.stated that a complaint has been file in Superior Court seeking to enjoin the opening and operation of the business. An application foratemporary restraining order.was filed by the City Attorney's Office on behalf of the City, which was denied. But, the judge did order the operator of the business to show cause on October 22nd. He stated that the emergency ordinance would be appropriately adopted at this time. He stated that there are certain First Amendment rights that the individual operating the business has. Passage of the emergency ordinance would limit the term of the moratorium, the actual com- plete prohibition of the display of this kind of material. He added that.other reasons as set forth in the declaration of emergency support the adoption of the emergency ordinance. Chairman Haidinger asked if the adoption of the ordinance would put the operator out of business. • Mr. Burnham stated that it is complicated due to the fact that the business is -now in operation. If the court should find that they were lawfully in operation before this ordinance was inacted, the business would then be a legal, non- conformin right. Mr. Burnham stated that the City Attorney Office takes the position that they are not law - fully in operation because they opened in spite of and in-violation of the moratorium. Ile also stated that the ordinance has a three year amortization provision. Commissioner Cokas asked Mr. Burnham why a three year amortization is.being proposed. Mr. Burnham stated that he felt the three year period was appropriate and reasonable, given the fact that the applicant has an initial investment to recove He stated that a declaration was filed by the operator which indicated that approximately. $25,000.00 was spent on remodeling the interior. A building inspection has indicated.that the changes made did not warrant a building permit. He also stated that there is some discrepancies as to.what has been done after the inspection. IMr. Burnham stated that an additional control, by way of.a use permit, was not included in.this -14- COMMISSIONERS October 9, 1980 MINUTES. d In N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ordinance, as the locational restrictions would be the only valid restriction to be placed on this particular type of business. Chairman Haidinger stated that in this particular case,.the prohibition of such a business would be its.close proximity to a residential district. Mr..Burnham.concurred. 0 0 Commissioner Balalis asked if adult motels /hotels or. cabarets would still.be subject to the require ments of a use permit. Mr...Burnham stated that adult motels would not be subject to a use permit under this new ordinance. Commissioner Balalis pointed out the inconsistency of this, in that a family motel /hotel would still require a use permit. Mr. Burnham stated that the point raised by Commissioner Balalis is well taken. He stated that perhaps a provision should be included in the ordinance, that with respect to certain uses that are not First Amendment protected uses, that the regular provisions of the ordinance apply. planning Director Hewicker suggested`wording to the affect, "where there are other existing pro- visions in the Code which are more restrictive than contained herein, the more restrictive regulations shall apply." Mr. Burnham concurred with this wording. Commissioner McLaughlin asked if a business area such as Fashion Island could have adult enter- tainment uses, considering its close proximity to Big Canyon, which is a residential area. Mr. Burnham stated that from a zoning standpoint, uses of this nature would be able to locate in Fashion Island. Commissioner Beek stated that the Constitution allows that these kinds of busi- nesses have the opportunity to locate, because of First Amendment rights. Commissioner Beek suggested the following changes to the proposed amendment: Reference should be made to Chapter 20.74, because 20.73 is the Condominium Conversion Ordinance. -15- w ROLL CALL 0 • October 9, 1980 VI Beach Page 4, J -1, 7th line, delete the word "and" and replace with "or ". Page 4, J -2, is not an activity. Item 2 is an object and is covered adequately by K -2 on Page 5. Therefore,.) -2 on Page 4. should be eliminated and the remainder of the items renumbered. Pages 5 and 6, under Special Regulations, A, B and C, the wording after the reference to the amount of feet should be, "walking . distance along public streets from" rather than "of ". Mr. Burnham stated that there may be two ways in getting to an area.' This last change would put an individual to the task of checking not only the zoning maps of the City, but the circulation aspects to determine how far it may be from a particular prohibited use. Commissioner Beek stated that it is not his intention to prohibit these uses altogether, but to protect the public. Commissioner Beek's suggested changes continued as follows: Page 6, Item C, the.term "public building" is indefinite and unclear. Mr. Burnham stated that the term is unclear enough that he would have no objection to its removal. Page 6, the hearing of "D" Waiver of Loca- tional Provisions is inconsistent with the format. Perhaps the format of the amendment should be revised, and that possibly a new category is needed to replace "D ". Commissioner Beek also stated that this category would be the ideal place to insert the new language regarding use permit as proposed by Planning` Director He.wicker. Commissioner Balalis stated that Page 6, Item C, should include the word "beach" on its list. Mr. Burnham stated that there is a legitimate basis -16- COMMISSIONERS October 9, 1980 MINUTES Of for.adding "beach" to the li.st, in that a large number of children play on the beaches, and beach are family orientated. Commissioner Beek's suggested changes continued, as follows: Page 8; Item C' first line, delete the word "the' and add the word "any ". Page 8, Item D, first line, delete the word "should" and add the word "shall ". Page 8, in the paragraph on Severability, delete the quote sign at the end of the sentence. Planning Director Hewicker asked the Commission leave in the term, public building, as found on Page 6, Item C, with the additional wording to • clarify, such as, but not limited to librarys, city halls, etc. .Mr. Burnham suggested using the wording governmental building. Commissioner Balalis stated that by using the ter governmental building, the Sherman Foundation or the Art Museum may not be included. .Planning - Director Hewicker stated that these uses are also located next to residential uses which protect them. Commissioner Balalis stated that there may be other public uses in the City which would not be protected by residential uses or the term governmental buildings. Commissioner Cokas stated that the .term public building would include governmental uses. Chairm Haidinger stated that the concern is that the ter public buildings dings is.too general and may make the ordinance unenforceable. Commissioner Allen suggested that staff come up. with a term reflecting the Commission's concerns, which is more explicit to include buildings such as the Art Museum. Mr. Burnham stated that he can attempt to come up with a.definition re- strictive enough so that the person reading the • ordinance knows if his business is located within a described building. He stated that the problem -17- COMMISSIONERS1 October 9, 1980 9= City of Newport Beach MINUTES arises when the number of buildings and the vagueness of the definition is increased. Chair - man.Haidinger suggested to Mr. Burnham that he make the wording as restrictive as possible. Motion X Motion was made to accept the wording of the proposed ordinance. with rewi °sions to the: wording as discussed, and to delete the wording "public building" and add. "governmental building" to Page 6, Item C. Commissioner Beek stated that he does not want- to make the wording as restrictive as possible. He stated that public buildings are generally not places that need to be protected from adult entertainment uses. School, churches, playground and parks are the legitimate places to protect from these uses. m Commissioner Thomas stated that he felt that the opening of one adult bookstore does.not constitute • an emergency. He stated that.the City needs an ordinance to protect itself, but that this-emer- gency ordinance seems rather hasty. Motion X Motion was made that the restrictions of 500 and Ayes X 1000.feet as found on Page 6, be modified to read, Noes X X X X X'500 feet walking distance along public streets from ", and "1000 feet walking distance along public'streets from ", which MOTION FAILED. Addition X Chairman Haidinger added. to his previous motion, to Motion that the Commission recommend to the City Council Ayes X X XX X X that this be adopted as an emergency ordinance, Noes X which MOTION CARRIED. Consideration of proposed Land Use Plan and Item #5 Development Policies for the Local Coastal LOCAL Program. —A ­ST AL INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach PROGR M Continued Yo to Octobe -18- 23, 1980 m COMMISSIONERS 7 N .T N CALL October 9, 1980 of Newport Beach Chairman Haidinger stated that the LCP discussion tonight will primarily cover the October 9th staff report, beginning with a discussion on West Newport Harbor. WEST NEWPORT HARBOR WEST NEWPO Commissioner Beek stated that language should be HARBO included in this section to pe.rmi.t trailer boat launching facilities. Motion X Motion was made to add the wording "The City shall encourage provision of a small boat launching facility at the Santa Ana Rivermouth if feasible,' to the West Newport Harbor proposed language. Alternate policy language was proposed by staff regarding the West Newport Harbor as follows: "The City of Newport Beach shall not oppose any efforts to gain approvals for or develop a small • craft harbor in the West Nerport- Santa Ana River. area." Amendment Amended motion was made to adopt the alternate policy language in lieu of the proposed language appearing in the September 4th staff report for West Newport Harbor, and to include the proposal that the City shall encourage provision of a small boat launching facility at the Santa Ana Rivermouth, if feasible. Commissioner Allen stated that she is concerned with taking out the provisions of the environment al constraints. Commissioner Thomas stated that he is concerned with the deletion of the referent to the Flood Control Project Plan. Commissioner Balalis stated that he is concerned with where the people launching their small craft will park. Commissioner Beek stated that he is interested in the person with a trailerable boat. because o.ne can launch their boat directly into t ocean at the Santa Ana Rivermouth. Commissioner Beek stated that he is not particular as to what side of the bridge the people park because he would assume the facility would provide their own • . parking and would not be dependent on Newport Shores for its parking. -19- RT COMMISSIONERSI October 9, 1980 MINUTES ; City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Additional Commissioner Balalis. suggested that.the motion Amendment X include, the provision that the facility be self - contained to adequateTy provide services to accommodate parking, restrooms, and so forth. Commissioner Beek stated that this wording would be acceptable to him. Chairman Haidinger stated that he.would vote against this motion because he -is in favor of theA nitial language which supports this project. Ayes X XK X Commissioner Beek'.s amended motion was now voted Noes X X X on, which MOTION CARRIED. SHUTTLE SHUTTLE SYSTEM, -CITY TRANSIT PLAN SYSTEM Commissioner.Thomas directed staff to use the language for the shuttle system as found in the • August 21st, 7:30 p.m. minutes on Page 28. He stated that this included the wording on reducing vehicular access to the Peninsula. PARKING PARKING Mr. Bill Frederickson, Chairman of the Central Newport Beach Parking Committee appeared before the Commission. Mr. Frederickson stated that the support the statement "The City shall locate and. develop new public parking and encourage private parking wherever necessary and feasible ", as found =on Page 5 of the August 21st staff report. He stated that this proposed policy is endorsed by th.e Committee. Mr. Phil Tozer; representing the Balboa Pavilion, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Tozer stated that they understand the Commission's concern for preserving, protecting and promoting public acces to the water and the value of marine recreation and visitor serving uses. He stated that if then activities are to continue, there must be complet vehicular access to the Peninsula and that the - -20- COMMISSIONERS1 October 9, 1980 ,s n N City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX the little public parking,now available, must be preserved. He stated.that the Balboa Pavilion is totally dependent on access.and parking. Commissioner Thomas stated that the restriction. of vehicular access to the area is not intended to impact the business area of Balboa, only further down on the Peninsula. Commissioner Balalis suggested changes to the . September 4th staff report on parking as follows: Page 3, 3rd paragraph under parking, second line, replace the word "required" with provided ". . Page 3, 4th paragraph, second line, replace "Coastal Zone" with "city limits ". Page 4, lst line, delete "in close proximity to the Coastal Zone ". • Commissioner Balalis stated that this will establi h that the City .may use parking areas outside of the Coastal Zone with the transit system to bring people down to the Coastal Zone. Add. itional paragraph to be added after the —second line on Page 4, proposed by Commission r Balalis as follows: In addition, the City shall accept liability and hold private property owners harmless of liability if this requirement is applied. Commissioner Allen stated that if the City accepts liability, that would presuppose that the parking would be available at no charge, which is not currently how it is handled. Frequently when the lots are available, there is a fee which covers an attendant and the liability. Commissioner Allen suggested. to Commissioner Balalis that Page 4., the second line should end with the words "within the City ". She stated that this would specifically delineate that we • were not suggesting that Newport Center be used as the parking lot for the National Park in the Irvine Downcoast. COMMISSIONERS � y�y ED CALL October 9, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Balalis stated that he concurred with Commissioner Allen's statements. He stated that..when there is pay and.park arrangements, the City should not have any liability, as the privat property owner will have his own insurance. He stated that there are some parking areas which are required to be left open to the general publi at no cost, such as the Bank of America on the Peninsula. He also concurred with `her additional wording, "within the City" on Page 4. Chairman Haidinger stated that as he understands, the first paragraph on parking on Page 3 will read, "The City shall require new commercial developments in the Coastal Zone to make parking provided by the project available to the public for a fee when the hours of operation of the pro - posed uses allow such joint useage, and the proje is in close proximity to coastal resources" with the .other changes proposed.by Commissioner Balali but with the.deletion of the paragraph that.the • City. accept liability. Commissioner. Beek stated that it should not be specified.for a fee. Chairman Haidinger stated that the concern is.the implication that a fee is not permitted. Commissioner Thomas stated that a fee structure should not be used as keeping people out of the lot. Commissioner Beek suggested the wording "possibly for a fee Commissioner Thomas suggested addi- tional wording, "possibly for a reasonable fee ". The revised wording to read as follows: "The City shall require new commercial devel- opments in the Coastal Zone to make parking provided by.the project available to the publi possibly for a reasonable fee, when the hours of operation of the proposed uses allow such joint useage, and.the project is in close proximity to coastal resources. When new commercial developments are not in close proximity to coastal resources but are within the City-limits, this requirement may be applied where adequate transit exists to coastal resources within the City." -22- lw u H` " G October 9, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES ■ ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX Chairman Haidinger asked for any objections to the proposed language, there were none. Chairman Haidinger asked for comments or objectio to the proposed advertising language found on Page 4 and`5 of the September 4th staff report as follows: "l a system of remote parking and public transit is established within.the City of Newport Beach, an extensive publicity program will be developed to promote the system." There were not comments or objections to the proposed language. Chairman Haidinger asked for comments on the re- striction of vehicular access to the Balboa Peninsula. Commissioner Thomas suggested changing the wordin "restricting visitor access to the Balboa Penin sula "'to "restricting vehicular access to the Balboa Peninsula beyond the Balboa Pier." Chair- man Haidinger suggested wording "restricting visitor access to residential areas of the Balboa Peninsula." Commissioner Thomas stated that ther may be residential areas north or west that may not be covered. Commissioner Balalis suggested only replacing.the word "visitor" with "vehicular ". Commissioner Beek stated that this would be adequate in that we will be studying its feasibility. Commissioner Thomas stated that consideration should be given to the Balboa Peninsula business area. Motion K Motion was made to change the word "visitor" to "veh.icular to the proposed language as follows: "in conjunction with the establishment of a comprehensive transit system in the City of Newport Beach, the feasibility of restricting vehicular access to the Balboa Peninsula area shall be studied as a means of easing traffic congestion and improving circulation." AmWment X Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Thomas that due consideration shall be given to the Balboa Peninsula business area. -23- (C)MMISSIONER51 October 9, 1980 MINUTES � w y w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes X X X X X_X.Amended motion was now voted on, which MOTION Noes K CARRIED. Chairman Haidinger asked for any comments or objections on the proposed language for.pool parking management, there were none. Mr. Lenard stated that. these revised policies wil be added to the two existing parking policies as found on Page 17 of the draft LCP. Chairman Haidinger asked for any objections to this, there were none. PUBLIC RESTROOMS Commissioner Beek suggested the following languag for the public restroom issue: "Enough restrooms be located in the vicinity of the oceanfront to assure that one is within one -half mile of walkin distance from each point on the ocean beach, pro- vided that feasibility studies indicate that such restrooms can be maintained in- a safe, moral_ and sanitary condition." Chairman Haidinger asked Commissioner Beek how many restrooms this is.proposing. Commissioner Beek stated that this would be approximately eigh restrooms. Chairman.Haidinger stated that the LCP currently calls for five restroom additions. Commissioner Beek stated that the important con - sideration is to.get.to the facility and one =half mile seems to be a reasonable walking distance. Commissioner Balalis stated that an exact locatio of one -half mile, is not appropriate', because some areas of the beach are not frequented as-much by the public. He stated that�he would not want to list specific locations because parking, shuttle bus systems,1ocker facilities, refrleshments, lifeguards, and so on should be in ',the proximity of the restroom facilities. Commissioner Thomas stated that: thei action on the restroom facilities made by Commissioner Balalis on August 21st, left the restroom locations general, as listed in the draft LCP, along with the language to include dressing room facilities which are clean and well maintained. He stated -24- COMMISSIONERS October 9, 1980 MINUTES y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX that this a a good action and gives only target areas to work with. Commissioner Balalis con' curred. Chairman Haidinger stated that the concern ex- pressed in the afternoon session was to leave the areas flexible by not identifying the locations. Motion X Motion was made to accept the recommendations of the draft LCP,. Page 25,.4A thru 4D on the public restrooms, with the addition of the motion made by Commissioner Balalis on August 21st on the public restrooms. Commissioner Beek stated that by doing so, this will leave the area from the Balboa Pier to the West.Jetty without a restroom facility and a long way to walk. All Ayes X X X X X X Motion by Commissioner Thomas was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. VISUAL ACCESS VISUAL ACCESS Motion X Motion to eliminate the wording, "minimize the impact on" and add the word "protect ".. Chairman Haidinger stated that he was in agreement with the change as long as the intent of "protect" is not that it cannot interfere in anyway whatso- ever. Commissioner Allen stated that the word "preserve" would probably mean to not interfere in anyway, but that "protect" would achieve what we are looking for. All Ayes X X X X X Mot ion .by.Commissioner Thomas was now voted on, which. MOTION CARRIED. A discussion now followed on the view lists. Com= missioner Thomas suggested that the views which already exist oh.public property due to dedication or conditions upon development be included also. -25- i COMMISSIONERS1 October 9, 1980 w n y y City of Newport Beach Mr. Dave Dmohowski representing The Irvine Compan appeared before the Commission. Mr. Dmohowski stated that the three descriptions of the Cast- aways property on the list on Page 5 of the Octobe 9th staff report should read, "Castaways from the bluff setback" which best describes what public view opportunities there are on the, Castaways sit Also, clarification needs to be made on the West= bay site which includes Nos. 10 and 11 on the lis Commissioner Beek suggested combining Nos. 10 and 11 to read; "Irvine between Santiago and Universi Drive ". Mr. Dmohowski stated that in the interes of public safety, he is requesting that there be no view preservation off of Irvine Avenue. Mr. Don W.eW, Assistant City Engi.neer, stated that from a traffic safety standpoint, this view shoul be prevented. Commissioner Bee.k stated that the Lido Isle Bridge and the Entrance to the Balboa Island be moved to the second list because protecting these views have already been achieved. He suggested that Bayside at* Promontory Bay.should also be included on the second list. Chairman Haidinger suggested moving Larson's Shipyard to the second list also. Commissioner Thomas suggested that the motion include the suggestion of Irvine between Santiago and University Drive to be included on the first list. Commissioner Balalis suggested -that Inspiration Point Park be included on the second list. He also stated that the beach and bay street ends should be protected and included on the second list. Chairman Hai,d,inger asked for Amy objections to the,list as it is now pro.posed, there were no objections. Chairman Haidinger asked staff to explain the discussion on General Plan Amendment.79 -1 as found on Page 5 of the October 9th staff report. Mr. Lenard explained that the Commi.ssio',n and City Council has reviewed the possibility of.preiserving view cor- ridors during the hearings on General Plan Amendment. 79 -1 and 80 -1. At that time, the restriction on lo- cating buildings in view areas was not adopted due to a concern that such a requirement may preclude development on certain sites. -26- COMMISSIONERS October 9, 1980 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Balalis explained the difference between preserve and protect. Commissioner Cokas suggested that language, be added to the policy to clarify the Commission's intent. Motion X Motion was made to add the fo1lowing wording: All Ayes X X X XK X X "This policy is not intended to prohibit develop- ment on any site" which MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission added policy language and significant view -lists to the -Local Coastal Pro - gram as follows: 0 0 "Where coastal views from existing roadways exist any development on private property within the site lines from the roadway shall.be sited and designed to protect the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit development on any site." Coastal View Areas Proposed: 1) Opposite 2200 Pacific Drive, Corona del 2). Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar 3) Eastbluff Remnant 4) :Coast Highway near Jamboree 5) Pacific Coast Highway Bridge-Launching 6) Castaways from the Bluff Setback 7).Constellation near Santiago 8) Irvine between Santiago and University Coastal View Areas Existing: 1) Galaxy Park 2) Ens.ign View Park 3) Promontory Point East 4) "N" Street 5) 10th Street Beach 6) 19th Street Beach 7) Promontory Bay at Harbor Island Drive 8) Promontory Bay at Bayside Drive 9) Cliff Drive Park 10) Eastbluff Park 11) Coast Highway Bridge 12) .Arches /Newport Boulevard Bridge 13) Lido Island Bridge 14) Entrance to Balboa Island 15), Larson's Shipyard 16) Inspiration Point Park 17.) The Beach and Bay Street Ends -27- . Mar Ramp Drive C MISSIONERS1 October 9, 1980 MINUTES 11f coo) N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX "N" STREET BEACH LEASE "N" STREET Commissioner Thomas suggested that.the Commission BEACH apply the previously approved general leasehold LEASE, policies to the 'IN" Street Beach Lease. Chairman Haidinger asked for any comments or objections, there were none. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABTTAT AREAS. NVIRON- Chairman Haidinger asked staff to explain what. " "` actions would be in order for this issue. Mr. ABITAT Lenard referred the Commission to the September REAS 18th staff report, beginning on Page 11.. He stated that the change would be to identify specific areas and call them out as-"Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas," as a new definition.. Commissioner Thomas stated that these sensitive areas need to be specified ahead of time, if the Commission is to impose restrictions on environ- mentally sensitive areas. Mr. Lenard stated that this is -why the sensitivity section under each of the sites has been drafted, as the key to which areas are considered environmentally sensitive. These additional descriptions and policies have been added in response to the Coastal Commission staff comments. Commissioner Balalis raised the question of discretionary review. Commissioner Thomas stated that because the Coastal Act is more specific in the area of environmentally sen itive re- sources, a policy which leaves thelprotection of such resources to the discretionary review process is not appropriate Commissioner Balalis stated that this kind of a decision can not be made until there is.an EIR. He suggested that the areas be protected or pre- served after review of the EIR. Mr...Lenard stated that the narrative which deals with the sensitivity of the sites could be delete _28_ nom, s October 9, 1980 M MINUTES INDEX and the .Commission may only wish to adopt the policy language section. This may allow more discretion at the project review stage with an environmental impact report. Commissioner Balalis suggested.that the Commissi:o adopt the City's General Plan as it exists, which protects and preserves sensitive habitat areas. Chairman Haidinger suggested to accept the LCP as originally drafted as found on Page 27, which identifies these areas. He stated that there are controls in the General Plan which will supplemen this. Commissioner Balalis stated that careful controls should be given "and preservation of these sites should be the primary purpose. Chairman Haidinge suggested . the following wording, "Careful control should be used to preserve these sites." Commissioner Balalis stated that he is concerned with preserving these areas, either.at the time of the implementation phase; or during the devel- opmen.t in.a particular area. Commis.s.ioner Cokas stated that Chairman Haidinger's use of the word "preserve" should accomplish-this concern. Commissioner Beek stated that use of the. word. "sho ld" is not mandatory and.does not accomplish anything. He proposed the following language as quoted from the Coastal Act: "Environmentally sensitive habitate areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values and only Uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed." Commissioner Balalis stated that he did not dis- agree with Commissioner Beek's statement, as long as the specific sensitive areas are intended_, a.nd not the areas immediately around them. Motion Ix) I I 1111motionw as made to adopt the language contained in the staff report of September 18th, Page 19, Policies 1 thru.8, including the area summaries. Mr. Dave Dmohowski of The Irvine Company commente that they are :concerned with Policies Nos. 3 and -29- WISSIONERS October 9, 1980 MINUTES v F WX 01. City of Newport Beach 71111 1 INDEX Mr..Dmoh.owski stated that No. 3 is tagging a buff r area upon a buffer area. An additional 25 foot buffer is excessive. Mr. Dmohowski also stated that they do.not understand the intent of Policy No. 7. Mr. Lenard stated. that Policy No. 7 was drafted t address homes built on. Buck Gully and Morning Canyon where there are encroachments into the Canyon. This would imply that there would not e be any further encroachments into the habitat areas. Commissioner Beek stated that he agreed with Mr. Dmohowski's comment on Policy No 3 regarding the buffers, and made the following amendment to the motion: Amendment Amendment to the motion that buffer 25 feet wide should be left between environmentally sensitive habitat areas unless they are themselv-es buffers. Commissioner Thomas accepted the amendment to the.motion. Ayes X X X Amended motion was now voted on, which MOTION Noes X X X X FAILED. Motilon X Motion was made to accept Page 27 of the draft LCP with.the'following changes: "The City of Newport Beach contains many areas which are environmentally sensitive in nature. Since these are all in the Coastal Zone, and the sensitivity can be.related directly to the proximity to the water, careful controls will be given to preserve environmentally sensitive areas within these sites." Amendment X Commissioner Allen suggested an amendment to the motion with the wording "environmentally sensitive areas within these sites will be preserve.d." Chairman Haidinger accepted this amendment to his motion. Mr. Dmohowski suggested that Page.11 of the . September 18th staff report should include a definition of what is considered environmentally sensitive. Chairman Haidinger concurred and adde Ad ional the following wording to his motion: "The Am- ment X1 following types of habitats shall be considered environmentally sensitive habitats." -30- a0 O �D N 7C N 7 October 9, 1980 z t Beach MINUTES -31- Commissioner Balalis suggested including the area summaries to the motion as found on Page 14 thru Additional 19 of the September 18th staff report. Chairman Amendment X Haidinger stated that he would include these in his motion. Commissioner Thomas stated that if- this -is the case, the Coastal Commission staff will be writing the report, because it is vague and general on the environmentally sensitive habitats. Ayes X X XK X X Chairman. Haidinger's amended motion was now voted Dn, Noes X which MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Haidinger's motion included the followin : The City of Newport Beach contains many areas which are environmentally sensitive in nature, which include all or portions of the following sites: 1 : - Semini uk Slough 2. North Star Beach 3. Westbay 4. Upper.Newport Bay Ecological Reserve 5. San Diego Creek 6. Eastbluff Remnant 7. Mouth of Big Canyon 8.. Newport North 9. Buck Gully 10. Morning Canyon 11. Corona del Mar Marine Life Refuge 12. Castaways Environmentally sensitive areas within these sites shall:be preserved. The following types of habitats shall be considered environmentally sensitive habitats: 1. Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive 2. Natural riparian 3. Freshwater marshes 4. Saltwater marches 5. Intertidal areas 6. Other wetlands 7. Unique or unusually diverse vegetation communities. -31- COMMISSIONERS Ffl w ii, Mo0on I I I I I.IX October 9, 1980 of Newport Beach WWTi:S The motion also included the area summaries as found on Page 14 thru'19 of the September 18th staff report. Commissioner Balalis referred to Page 19 of the September 18th staff report.and stated that the first narrative policy should be included which will follow the General Plan Amendment 79 -1, which goes into greater detail. Motion was made that under the reference to pre - serve any development on or near tlhese sites, this will be accomplished as outlined in General Plan Amendment 79 -1: 1.. Environmentally sensitive hab'ltat.a_reas 2. Coastal bluffs 3. Bluff -top setback areas 4. Riparian areas 5. Geologic hazard areas 6. Residential development areas'impacted by noise levels of 65 CNEL or gr:ter e 7. Flood plain areas 8. Natural slope areas greater t n two to . one (2:1) and greater than tw my -five feet in height. ". Commissioner Allen stated that thiss delineates the fact that we intend to use th0 iscretionary review process to determine what is environmental' sensitive. Ayes X X X X Motion by Commissioner Balalis was now voted on, Noes X X which. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Haidinger suggested to staff to supply the necessary connective language for the adopted policies on environmentally sensitive habitats. Chairman Haidinger stated th.at this hearing will be continued to the evening session Planning Commission Meeting on October 23, 1980. -32- AMISSIONERS October 9, 1980 MINUTES y � N, City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Motion Y Motion was made to approve an excused absence for Ayes X X YX X X Chairman Haid.i,nger for-the October 23, 1980 Noes X Commission Meeting, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion X Motion was made to consider an amendment to the All Ayes X X X W X X Rules of Procedure of the Planning Commission on October 23, 1980, so that the Commission meet the. Thursday before the second.and fourth Tuesday of each month, which MOTION CARRIED. There being no further busi.ness, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:55 p.m. George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach • -33-