Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/1975COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \,�� Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:00 P.M. DAPPAI Date: November 6, 1975 MINUTES INDEX Present X X X X X X EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director. Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning Tim Cowell, Advance Planning Administrator Shirley Harbeck, Secretary Motion X Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 16, 1975 All Ayes were approved with the following changes: 1. That a.notation be inserted prior to Item No. 4 stating: "Item No. 5 (General Plan Amend- ment No. 27) was heard prior to Item No. 4 (General Plan Amendment No. 26) and therefore the comments under Item No. 5 were taken into the consideration of Item No. 4." 2. That the second paragraph on Page 12 (Item No. 4, General Plan Amendment NO. 26) be expanded to summarize the individual comments, and are as follows: Commissioner Williams commented on the probable need to explain any definitions to the general public regardless of the actual word used and felt that buildable acreage.was a very understandable term and seemed to be the most clear, since buildable acreage included areas which could be developed whereas net and gross needed further inter- pretation. Commissioner Seely pointed out that the amend- ment would have no effect on existing zoning and felt that the term buildable acreage would be a more accurate definition of what exists in the community. Commissioner Heather voiced concern with havin to again reconsider this particular amendment and did not feel comfortable with the addition of the term buildable acreage. Page 1. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Rcn« November 6, 1975 INDEX Commissioner Parker stated that most land was bought, sold, calculated and resubdivided on the basis of gross and net and felt that the addition of the term buildable acreage would not clarify anything but would only add to the confusion which already existed. Commissioner Beckley voiced his concern with problems which would be created on sloping land and whether or not buildable acreage would be calculated before or after grading and felt there would be massive contour development problems which are not really necessary. 3. That comments by Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Seely be included on Page 18 under Item No. 7, General Plan Amendment No. 29, as follows: Commissioner Williams commented that open spat is not all alike in terms of potential uses. Upper Newport Bay is sufficiently large and • .the topography suitable for compatible human usage without hindering the flora and fauna. At Rio Hondo College, in Whittier, we have an 80 -acre remnanat of the native coastal sage scrub community located adjacent to the campus of some 14,000 students. We have obtained permission from the landowner to use the area and have posted it as a wildlife sanctuary. We have further limited our use of the area in order to avoid over -use to the detriment of the wildlife we want to study. The Spyglass Hill Nature Park warrants even more restriction because of steep slopes and dense vegetation. However, it appears that public enjoyment of the area will be obtained as viewpoints from above are developed. Buck Gully represents open space which, because of the narrowness, steepness, and closeness to homes, should be essentially unavailable to the general public. If public usage were encouraged, the natural values in Buck Gully would likely be lost to all. Commissioner Seely raised the following points 1. The practical effect of deleting the option of a hiking trail within Buck Gully • is to discourage any public access to the existing public areas of the canyon and to preserve the site for the exclusive enjoy- ment of adjacent residents: Page 2. 0 0 COMMISSIONERS. r A x i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 6. 1975 MINUTES iuncr 2. Deletion of the existing hiking trail designation within Buck Gully is premature in that no proposals are now pending for such development. As a result, the Commission has no reliable information before it demonstrating that a properly planned hiking trail would be necessarily detrimental to the ecology of the site. 3. The Environmental Nature Center adjacent to Newport Harbor High School and adjoin- ing residential areas is evidence that public use and preservation and enjoyment of natural environment are not incompat- ible goals. Item #1 Request to approve the Final Map of Tract 8787 to FINAL subdivide 10.010 acres into six numbered lots for MAP residential condominium development, one numbered TRACT lot to be developed as a landscape area, and 'five 8787 lettered lots to be developed as private streets. APPROVED Location: A portion of Block 91, Irvine's CONDI- Subdivision, located on the south- TIU-NN—LLY erly side of Ford Road, easterly of New MacArthur Boulevard, consisting of Area 13 in the "Harbor View Hills" Planned Community. Zone: P -C Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Simpson- Steppat, Newport Beach Community Development Director Hogan reviewed the conditions recommended in the staff.report as well as a 6th condition providing "That.the final map not be recorded until it is determined that the development will not interfere with the ability to implement the proposed San Joaquin Transportation Corridor." He advised of the applicant's concern as to whether or not conditions Nos- 2, 3, and 6 could legally be added to the final map. Mr. Hogan also pointed out that the substance of the condi- tions pertaining to fire access and cul -de -sacs Page 3. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Y� M i < MINUTES RO *GAIL November 6, 1975 INDEX was an issue on which there was much disagreement between the applicant the the staff. There was some discussion by the Planning Commis- sion as to whether the matter should be continued at this point or whether the issued should be dis- cussed and if a compromise could not be reached or a legal opinion was required, the matter could then be continued. Dave Neish, Manager, Planning Administration, The Irvine Company, appeared before the.Commission in connection with this matter. He commented on Condition No. 6 and felt it was the result of a letter received by the City regarding the pre- liminary SEOCCS study. He advised that The Irvine Company has kept in touch with the SEOCCS study and has always indicated to the County that Harbor View Hills was in tact and no transportation corridor should be considered through the area. Mr. Neish advised that since the tentative map was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, grading plans were drawn, grading permits • issued, and the grading contractor has begun work.. He also advised of the timing schedule involved and plans to begin construction. City Engineer Nolan reviewed with the Commission a letter dated November 3, 1975 from the Orange . County Environmental Management Agency regarding the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor proposed in the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study (SEOCCS). The County letter and attached drawing point out that some of .the alternate alignments for the transportation corridor being studied by. the County could impact the proposed development of Tract 8787. Mr. Nolan indicated that a determination could be made regarding the potential impact prior to City Council action on the final tract map, and that there was no objection to the Commission taking action on the map. Dave Neish advised that The Irvine Company was aesthetically opposed.to Conditions No. 2 and 3. Gib Mitchell with Irvine Pacific Development Company, appeared before the Commission to comment • on Conditions No. 2 and 3. They object to the paving and width of the fire access from an aesthetical.standpoint and.felt it could encourage Page 4. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1975 INDEX through traffic between the cul -de -sac and Ford Road. He also commented that the. -80 foot cul -de- sac was an aesthethic problem with its mass of paving and presented pictures for review by the Commission indicating what could be done to eliminate the problem. He reviewed the guest parking within the development; type of treatment proposed for the fire access (turf block with low groundcover between); and answered questions of the Commission relative to planting in the center of the cul -de -sacs and landscaping along and with- in the 20 foot fire access. Planning Commission questioned the need for 20 feet of access for fire equipment and Bill Noller, Fire Marshal, appeared before the Commission in this connection. He advised that 20 feet would provide two - way access for fire equipment and presented a report and diagrams indicating the turning radius needed for fire equipment on cul -de sacs. He pointed out that Conditions No. 2 and 3 were for the purpose of clarification as these issues were covered by Conditions No. 17 and 19 • when the tentative map was approved by the Commis- sion on April 17, 1975. City Engineer Nolan advised that the 40 foot radius at the curb is the dimension of the stand- ard local public street cul -de -sac with no center obstructions and is ample for maneuvering a pass- enger car but was rather limited for.trucks. Gib Mitchell commented that the standard.cul-de- sac allowed for parking, whereas no parking was being provided in this tract. Community Development Director Hogan commented on the issues involved whichwere a matter of inter- pretation as it was the intent of the Fire Depart- ment to require that the cul -de -sacs remain free and clear of all obstructions. Commissioner Agee advised that he did not feel a case had been made to warrant that the cul -de -sacs remain free and clear and although it was poor policy to allow for aesthetics at the expense of public safety, he did not feel planting in the center of the cul -de -sacs would obstruct maneuver- ability. He also felt that the fire access width could be reduced in size. Commissioner Tiernan advised that he would not like to see the City of Newport Beach involved in Page 5. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH YC T T 9% T 4 November 6, 1975 MINUTES INDEX a lawsuit over a fire because of a Planning Commis- sion decision to turn down the request of the Fire Marshal insofar as it pertained to the availabilit of equipment at a fire site. He felt that if an error was to be made, it should be on the side of public safety and serious consideration should be given to the remarks of the Fire Marshal. Commissioner Heather questioned the aspect of archeology and paleontology in view of the fact that grading had commenced. Dave Neish with The Irvine Company advised that there were no significant sites on the project which was reviewed when the tentative map was approved. Gib Mitchell with Irvine Pacific Development advised that the grading consisted of removing approximately 100,000 yards of uncompacted and unstable fill which had to be removed from the site and recompacted. • Commissioner Seely questioned the reduction of the planting area proposed for the center of the cul- de -sacs and was advised that a 16 foot radius planting area was being proposed. Planning Commission discussed the problems involv- ed and it was pointed out that if the Commission determined that Conditions No. 2, 3, and 6 could be removed, there would be no reason to continue the matter, however, if the Commission determined that the conditions should remain, it may be necessary to obtain a legal opinion as to whether or not conditions could be added to a final map. Motion X Motion was made that Final Map 8787 be approved subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report with conditions No. 2 and 3 to read as follows: 2. The emergency fire access between Ford Road and Lot E shall have a minimum width of 16 fee and shall be improved with a surfacing material of a permanent nature to be approved by the Fire Department and such width shall be main - tained free and clear of all obstructions • including trees or other landscaping that might impede the use of the easement by emergency vehicles. Page 6. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � Do rAI w November 6, 105 MINUTES INDEX 3. That the proposed cul -de -sacs shall be main- tained in such.a manner that planting of trees or other landscaping shall be restricted to the interior 5 foot radius of the cul -de -sacs. The motion and intent thereof was discussed and . Commissioner Parker questioned the ability of the Commission to design cul -de -sacs and felt that a policy would be established by this action and that the City needed some standards in.eonnect.ion.. with cul -de -sacs for the Commission to follow when required to make these decisions. He also ques= tioned the right of the Commission to vote on this matter from a legal standpoint. Commissioner Seely advised that the intent of his motion was not to set a policy but to provide some compromise because of the timing element involved and felt there was ample time to consider the legal aspects before the matter went to the City Council for their approval. Commissioner Williams questioned the reduction in • the width of the fire access as proposed by the motion and felt that either the minimum width for one lane or the minimum width for two lanes should be provided. Commissioner Beckley offered his interpretation of the reason for the condition which was that two . lanes were not really necessary but that one lane might well get inadvertently overgrown if held to 10 or 12 feet, whereas 16 feet would provide some protection in line with the concerns of the Fire Department. Planning Commission questioned the City Policy regarding cul -de -sacs and were advised that the standard design for a residential cul -de -sac was a 40 foot radius. The present private street policy provided for a 32 foot radius were parking was prohibited, however, that provision has in effect been superceded by the 40 foot radius requirement which has been recommended in the past few years. Also, there are no policies which would provide for planting islands within cul -de -sacs. Planning Commission discussed the conflicting • City Policies in connection with cul -de -sacs and felt there was a definite need to establish some new policies. Page 7. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF. NEWPORT BEACH � .c Z T DO�s„ T November 6, 1975 MINUTES INDEY Ayes X X X Following the discussion, motion was voted on.and Noes X X X X failed. Motion X Motion was then made to continue this matter to the next clear Planning Commission date. Dave Neish with The Irvine Company requested that the Commission vote on the individual conditions recommended in order to obtain a concensus and possible approval of the final map which could then be forwarded to the City Council and any issues which the Planning Commission did not wish to settle could be referred to the City Council for a decision. Motion X Since a compromise could not be reached.but in All Ayes order to expedite the matter because of the timing element, substitute motion was made that the Planning Commission approve Final Map No. 8787, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all applicable conditions of approval for the tentative map for Tract No. 8787 shall be • fulfilled. 2. The emergency fire access between Ford Road- and Lot E shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and shall be improved with a surfacing material of a permanent nature to be approved by the Fire Department. 3. The proposed cul -de -sacs shall be maintained free and clear of all obstructions, including trees or other landscaping in their centers. 4. House numbering shall conform with the pro- visions of Chapter 13.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and shall be approved by the Fire Department. 5. That all street names shall be shown on the final tract map before it is recorded. Page 8. COMMISSIONERS Y� A A Z N R09 CALL 0 Motion All Ayes • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1975 INDEX Item #2 Request approval of a Final Map to subdivide 7.663 acres into two lots for commercial development. FINAL MAC — TRACT Location: Portions of Block 91 and 92, 9014 Irvine's Subdivision, located on the southeasterly corner of New APPROVED MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road, CONDI- consisting of Area 14 in the TIDALLY "Harbor View Hills" Planned Community. Zone: P -C Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as. Applicant Engineer: Simpson - Steppat, Newport Beach Dave Neish, Manager, Planning Administration, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report and recommended conditions. X Motion was made that Planning Commission approve the Final Map of Tract No. 9014, subject to the following conditions: 1. That there shall be a document recorded satisfactory to the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development which pro- vides for perpetual vehicular access from Lot 1 to Lot 2, since no direct access from Lot 2 to Ford Road or New MacArthur Boulevard shall be permitted. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval for the tentative map for Tract No. 8787 shall be fulfilled. Item #3 Request to establish a Planned Community Develop- meet Plan and Development Standards for "Delaney's AMENDMENT N0. 453 WITHDRAWN Cannery Village" on the Lido Peninsula and the acceptance of an environmental document. Location: Portion of Lot 6 of Section 28 and Lot 2 of Section 33, Township.6 Page 9. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Motion All Ayes L 9 p A Z N November 6, 1975 MINUTES INDEX South, Range 10 West, San Bernardin Meridian, located at 700 Lido Park Drive on the south side of 28th Street, westerly of the Prolongatio of Lido Park Drive, on the Lido Peninsula. Zone: P -C Applicant: Delaney's Cannery Village, Laguna Beach Owner:. Mildred Stanley and Lloyd's Bank and Trust as trustee, Santa Ana X At the request of the applicant, this matter was withdrawn from further consideration. Item #4 Request to permit the use'of a former snack bar USE and an open patio area for a "take- out" and PERMIT "outdoor" restaurant facility with on -sale beer 177F-- and wine in Karen Margreta's Tivoli Square in the C -1 District, and the acceptance of an offsite APPROVED parking agreement for a portion of the required C NC N —�Dr-- parking spaces on an adjacent residential lot. TI ALLY The proposed parking lot includes one compact car space that encroaches to within 2 feet of the rear property line (where the Ordinance requires a minimum 5 foot rear yard setback-in the R -2 District when abutting a 14 foot wide alley). Location: Portion of Lot L, Tract 323, locate at 2640 East Coast Highway, on the northeasterly side of East Coast Highway between Dahlia Avenue and Fernleaf Avenue in Corona del Mar (Karen Margreta's Tivoli Square). Lot 11, Block 732, Corona del Mar, located at 711 Fernleaf Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Fernleaf Avenue between East Coast Highway and Fifth Avenue in Corona del Mar (offsite parking lot). Zones: C -1, R -2 Applicant: Craig W. Richter, Laguna Beach Page 10. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1975 INDEX Owner: George R. Richter, Pasadena Assistant Community Development Director Hewicker advised that revised site plans had been received that afternoon which involved moving the food preparation area to the opposite side of the patio and enlarging it from approximately 60 square feet to approximately 150 square feet. There were no changes to the number of tables, seats, or employe s and the revisions did not effect the staff's recommendation. He distributed the revised site plans to the Commission for thei.r review. Planning Commission voiced concern with the frequency of being presented last minute revisions by applicants and felt there wasn't much need to review staff reports in advance of the meeting if the facts were continually being altered after the filing of the applications. Assistant Community Development Director Hewicker reviewed the staff report and changes proposed by the revised site plan and answered questions of • the Commission.relative . to the proposed operation and the ordinance regulating the parking. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Craig Richter, applicant, appeared before the Commission in connection with this matter and concurred with the staff report and recommenda- tions. He advised there would be no cooking in the food preparation area and could see no reason for Condition No. 9 relative to providing an exhaust fan and kitchen hood system. He also advised that the hours of operation were from 11:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. and would not be a night- time operation. He answered questions of the Commi.ssion relative to the proposed operation,. including type of food to be served, control over removal of.beer or wine from the premises, serving of food from the "take -out" window, and cleanup of the patio area. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. ion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the following findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. Page 11. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES e19 �.�, N .November 6. 1975 Iuncy 2. Adequate offstreet parking spaces are being provided for the proposed development since th "take -out" restaurant will substantially cater to people who are already shopping in the commercial center or who walk or ride bicycles to the site. 3. The offstreet parking spaces.for the proposed restaurant on a separate lot from the building site is justifiable for the following.reasons: (a) The parking lot is.directly across a 14 foot wide alley from the main. building site; (b) The proposed development will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding areas; and (c) The site is owned by the applicant and will be maintained as an offstreet parking lot for the duration of the restaurant use.on the adjacent building site. • 4. That the Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 5. That the proposed use is replacing a similar use which formerly existed on the site. 6. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to on -site parking, circulatio , walls and landscaping, will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the site has been developed and the structures have been in existence for many years. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 1772 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detri- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1772, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial • conformance with the approved plot plan, except as noted in conditions Nos. 2 and 3. 2. That the proposed compact automobile space at Page 12. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES s ru, m Nnvamhar Fi_ 1g75 IIJnEY the rear of the offsite parking lot shall be eliminated and that the required 5 foot rear yard setback shall be maintained. 3. That the boundary walls between the proposed parking lot and the adjoining residential lot shall be constructed in accordance with Sectio 20.08.200 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. That a landscape plan for the landscaped set- back on Fernleaf Avenue shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation. Said landscaping shall be continuously maintained. 5. That the restaurant facility shall not be open for business prior to 10:00 A.M. or after 5:00 P. M. 6. That all new exterior lighting and signs shall conform to Chapter 20.53 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. i7. That all mechnaical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets, alleys, or adjoining properties. 8. That a maximum of four tables with sixteen seats shall be permitted in the patio area. 9. That in the event there is hot food prepara- tion, kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control odors and smoke in accordance with Rule 50 of the Air Pollution Control District. In addition, the kitchen hood system shall have an automatic fire protection system installed. 10. That this approval shall be for a period of two years, and any extension shall be subject to the approval of the Modifications Committee 11. That the development standards related to circulation, walls, landscaping and a portion of the parking requirements are waived. 12. That an offsite parking agreement shall . be approved by the City Council, guaranteeing • that a minimum of 8 parking spaces shall be provided on the adjoining site for the duration of the restaurant use on the pro- perty in question. Page 13. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T m n ? Z = MINUTES November 6, 1975 INDEX. 13. That the offsite parking area shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or other street surfac ing material of a permanent nature. Parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 14. That the existing utility.pole in the north- erly side of the alley shall be relocated if it obstructs ingress or egress to -any require parking space. Commissioner Beckley voiced concern.that this would provide the possibility of a potential hot food preparation in a much enlarged kitchen and. changes the concept, therefore, he requested that consideration be given to an amendment to the motion which would include the intent of the applicant as stated in this letter 'dated October 22, 1975, i.e., "There would be no hot food preparation. Only one employee would prepare the sandwiches for over - the - counter ordering, and to clear the tables after customer use." Aon X An amendment to the motion was made that Condition No. 9 be replaced with the wording, "That there will be no hot food preparation." Commissioner Seely voiced his opposition to the amendment as he did not feel hot food would pose a threat to the community. Commissioner Agee concurred with Commissioner Seely and added that the hour constraints as well as the physical constraints of the take -out restaurant did not warrant further restrictions. Ayes X X X The amendment to the motion was voted on and Noes X X X X failed. The original motion by Commissioner Seely was All Ayes then voted on and carried. Planning Commi.ssion.recessed at 9:25 P.M. and. reconvened at 9:35 P.M. Page 14. COMMISSIONERS m A P Z N ui 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES NnvemhPr 6. 1975 INDEX Item #5 Request to expand the seating capacity of the USE former Stuft Shirt Restaurant. The proposed PERMIT development will include the continued sale of 1773 alcoholic beverages, live entertainment, and. dancing in the structure. The proposal also APPROVED CONDI- includes a modification from the parking standards so as to allow tandem parking, and the acceptance TITNIFELY of an offsite parking agreement for a portion of the required parking spaces. Location: Portion of Lot H, Tract 919, located at 2241 West Coast Highway, on the southwesterly side.of West. Coast Highway, easterly of Tustin Avenue, on Mariner's Mile; and portion of Lot A, Tract 919, located at 2000 -2200 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, across the street from the former Stuft Shirt. Restaurant. Zone: C -O -Z Applicant: Ardell Investment Co., Newport_ Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Community Development Director Hogan reviewed a summary which compared the proposed restaurant with the former Stuft Shirt operation and the proposed Rebecca's restaurant. The summary included percentage of areas devoted to cocktails and dancing, waiting and reception, and dining. Planning Commission discussed the cross -walk bet- ween the restaurant and the offsite parking lot and were concerned with the potential hazards to which persons using the offsite parking lot might be subjected. City Engineer Nolan advised that the cross -walk had been at its present location for a.number of years and to the best of his knowledge, there had been no pedestrian accident problems. Planning Commission also discussed required facilities for the handicapped and number of employee parking which was included in the required parking. Page 15. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \.1MINUTES 00 PAI November 6. 1975 �uncY Public hearing was opened in.connection with this matter. D. T. Daniels representing Ardell Investment Company, applicant, appeared before the Commission in connection with this matter and answered ques- tions of the Commission relative to the offsite parking location, use of the cross -walk, and the operation of the restaurant which was being proposed (similar to that of the former Stuft Shirt operation). There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tiernan commented that he felt the offsite parking arrangement was nothing but a subterfuge to evade the impact of needed.parking. requirements and did not feel it would be used or was intended to be used and in his opinion would create an undue traffic hazard for the people who did use the lot. He urged that the request be revised or denied at this.time and the • applicant be advised to resubmit his request, providing adequate parking facilities. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the following findings: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate offstreet parking spaces are being provided for the proposed development. 3. Adequate provisions for traffic circulation are being made in the parking lots. 4. The required offstreet parking spaces located on a separate lot are justifiable for the .following reasons: (a) The offsite parking lot is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed uses on the site. (b) Parking on the offsite lot will not • create undue traffic hazards in the surround- ing area since there is a cross -walk connect- ing the offsite lot with the site. Page 16. COMMISSIONERS I .,CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A RACAL N November 6, 1975 MINUTES NDEX ' (c) The owners of the site also own the off- site lot, and will with the City, upon the approval of the City Council, execute a written instrument providing for the mainten- ance of the required offstreet parking for the duration of the proposed use of the site. 5. That the modification of City's parking stand- ards to allow full size tandem parking spaces and compact tandem parking spaces will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety,. peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injur -: ious to property and improvements in the neigh borhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of. Title 20 of this Code. 6. The proposed live entertainment will not be detrimental to any surrounding land uses so • long as.the music is confined to .the'interior of the restaurant facility. 7. The.approval of Use Permit No. 1773 will not,. under the circumstances of this case be. detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the gen- eral welfare of the City. 8. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. and approve Use Permit No. 1773, subject.to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, elevations and floor plans. 2. That a minimum of one parking space /35 sq..ft. of "net public area" shall be provided on- site or on an approved offsite location. An • offsite parking agreement shall be required, providing the additional required parking spaces (not to exceed 35). Page 17. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES November 6, 1975 INDEX 3. That the live entertainment and res.ultant noise shall be confined to the interior of the facility. 4. That there shall be no sound amplification used outside of the structure. 5. That a, landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation. Said landscaping shall_ be implemented in accordance with the approved plan and the landscaping shall be permanently maintained. 6. That all signs shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Conveni- ence signs such as "entrance" or "exit" shall have a maximum area of six square feet. Said convenience signs shall not include the name or logo of the restaurant use: 7. All exterior lighting shall be approved by the Department of Community Development. • 8. All storage of cartons, containers and trash shall be shielded from view within.a building or within an area enclosed by a wall or fence not less than six feet in height. 9. All employees shall be permitted to park either on -site or in the approved off -site lot. 10. Boat owners and their guests shall be permit- ted to park on the site at all times. 11. Facilities for the handicapped shall be pro- vided in a manner acceptable to the Building Official. 12. The building shall be made to conform with the Uniform Building Code - 1973 Edition and the California Administrative Code - Title 19. 13. All new driveway approach construction as well as removal and replacement of unused existing driveway approaches be accomplished in accordance with an encroachment permit • issued by CALTRANS. 14. The existing restrooms adjacent to the boat slips shall remain for the use of the marina. Page 18. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH YC die M $ T m f MINUTES November 6. 1975 INDEX 15. Site distance adjacent to the drives shall be provided in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. 16. That a washout area for trash containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or the storm drains. Motion X Planning Commission discussed finding No. 4.(b) and motion was made that the finding be amended to read: "Parking on the offsite lot will not create any additional traffic hazards in the surrounding area than presently exist since there is a cross -walk connecting the offsite lot with... the site." Community Development Director Hogan reviewed the Municipal Code regarding approval of offsite parking lots and findings which must be made in connection therewith. Planning Commission discussed further the type of • operation proposed, basis for the number of park- ing spaces being required, and the findings which must be made. The amendment to the motion regarding re- wording of finding No. 4.(b) was withdrawn since the Municipal Code specified what facts must be present and also it was pointed out that the offsite lot would not "create" undue traffic as both the lot and traffic already exist. Ayes X X X X X X The original motion was then voted on and carried. Noes X Item #6- South East Orange County Circulation Study SEOCCS A.. Discussion of Orange County Planning Commis- sion Resolution regarding General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes in SEOCCS Area. B. Discussion of SEOCCS Study and Recommendation to City Council regarding City Position on Alternative Proposals. Page 19. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ➢m yP ~ P r . MINUTES 9 9A eAl .Nn..e ml.or f. 1076 lmnvy Advance Planning Administrator Cowell reviewed the staff report and Orange County Planning Commission resolution which provided that the Orange County Planning Commission would not approve zone changes or County General Plan Amendments in the SEOCCS study area if those changes would preclude the implementation of any of the four objectives shown in the SEOCCS report. Staff felt this policy would be beneficial to the City of Newport Beach because of the concern with regional development, land use, and transportation system, and recommend- ed that the Commission support the.position as stated in the resolution. It was pointed out that the policy would be an interim policy in effect until June, 1976. Planning Commission discussed the location of the transportation corridors and their effect on the City of Newport Beach. Staff pointed out that the only area which might be affected was the most northerly corner of Tract 8787, otherwise all the alternatives were outside the City limits. It was also pointed out that the resolution under discus- • sion covered only County amendments and not amend- ments or actions which might be taken within the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner Parker commented that the effect of the resolution was to recommend that the Board.of Supervisors implement a policy which would place a moratorium on development in the area and felt that the City was presumptuous in recommending moratoriums in areas completely outside the City's jurisdiction. He would rather see.both the County and the City adopt resolutions recommending that the Board of Supervisors put more time and money into the SEOCCS study so that it could be defined more rapidly and implemented by June, 1976. Commi.ssioner Williams commented that this was an opportunity to be involved in regional planning and support something that does effect the City and although we are outside the SEOCCS area, we will still use it and, therefore, we should want the best possible planning and if that includes advance planning for road systems before develop- ment puts constraints on the area, we should take the opportunity to support the possibility of . good regional planning. Motion X Motion was made recommending that the City Council not support the resolution as discussed but that they adopt a resolution urging that the Board of Page 20. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT. BEACH YC' - m m < Z = MINUTES onrw,� m Z v .Novemher 6. 1975 - iuncr Supervisors give priority to the preparation of the final SEOCCS plan so that the plan can be implemented as soon as possible and land planning can proceed according to the SEOCCS plan as finally adopted but in any event no later than June 30, 1976. Commissioner Williams voiced his opposition to the motion and felt that the original resolution as proposed was much better and would accomplish the same thing. Ayes X X X The motion was voted on and failed. Noes X X x x Motion X A new motion was made recommending that the City Ayes. X X X X X Council adopt a resolution in support of the Noes X X Orange County Planning Commission's resolution for transmittal to the Board of Supervisors. City Engineer Nolan read a letter addressed to Mayor McInnis from County Supervisor Riley outlin- ing the general process and schedule for SEOCCS and requesting that the County be informed of the results of City review and hearings by mid - December. He also reviewed a letter dated May 13, 1975 from the Mayor to the County expressing comments on SEOCCS which are summarized as follows 1. The proposed San Joaquin Transportation Corridor should be included in the circulation system, with direct connections to the Corona del Mar Freeway on the westerly end and to the San Diego Freeway on the easterly end. 2. In the TICMAP area, the present County Master Plan of Arterial Highways should be followed except as it may be modified in the TICMAP hearing process. The proposed loop system should not be incorporated in the planning process at this time. 3. The proposed Foothill Transportation Corridor merits further investigation. Motion X Motion was made recommending to the City Council All Ayes that public hearing be held and that the City's position, as previously expressed in the May 13, • 1975 letter, be supported. Page 21. �y COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m X r 70 Z N C PAM November 6, 1975 MINUTES INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESSS: Commissioner Agee requested and received permission to be excused from the meetings of November 20, 1975 and December 4, 1975. Motion X Because of the holidays, Planning Commission All Ayes changed the dates for the January, 1976 meetings to January 8 and January 22, 1976. Motion X There being no further business, motion was.made All Ayes to adjourn. Time: 10:45 P.M. ���� %E JAMES M. PARKER, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 22.