Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/1991COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING' PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: November 7, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Present Absent Commissioner Merrill was absent. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Craig Bluell, Principal Planner John Douglas, Principal Planner Leslie Daigle, Associate Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of October 24. 1991: Minutes of Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the October 24, 1991, 10/24/91 Ayes * * * * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain Absent Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, November 1, 1991, in front of City Hall. COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Request for Continuances: Request James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No. 8, for Continue Amendment No. 738, regarding the sale of convenience items in conjunction with the operation of automobile service stations, and Item No. 9, Use Permit No. 1495 (Amended), regarding a request to upgrade an existing service station facility located at 1600 Jamboree Road, Texaco Refining and Marketing, applicant, be continued to the November. 21, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. He also requested that Item No. 10, Amendment No. 743, Traffic Study No. 80, and Resubdivision No. 972 regarding the Castaways Marina Planned Community, property located at 300 Dover Drive, be continued to the November 21, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. n * Motion was made and voted on to continue Items No. 8, No. 9, and * * * * * * No. 10 to the November 21, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. sent MOTION CARRIED. General Plan Amendment No. 91 -3 E) (Public Hearing) Item No.1 Request to consider an amendment to the Housing Element of the GPA 91 -3F Newport Beach General Plan concerning the preservation of (Res.1269) certain types of affordable housing. Approved INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, introduced Craig Bluell, Principal Planner. Mr. Bluell stated that the Amendment to the Housing Element of the General Plan Amendment is required by State Law, and he addressed the revised Exhibit "A' to the Resolution that was distributed to the Planning Commission at the public hearing. -2- COMMISSIONERS a�5 November 7, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL il Jill I INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and there being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Commissioner Debay made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 1269, General Plan Amendment No. 91 -3(F), recommending to the City Council the approval in concept, on the basis of the statement in the staff report stating that after the approval in concept, the draft amendment must be sent to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their required review. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Bluell explained that the Housing Element will remain in conformance with the State Law. Mr. Hewicker stated that Housing and Community Development is required to make a finding that the Housing Element complies with the State Law. * * Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ot ._: A. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 1 Public Item No.2 Hearin CRDP No.19 Request to consider a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for the demolition R965 of an existing fourplex structure on property located within the Coastal Zone. Approved AND B Resubdivision No. 965 (Public Hearing Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for two- family residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. -3- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Lot 21, Block 2, Balboa Bayside Tract, located at 420 East Bay Avenue, on the northerly side of East Bay Avenue, between Cypress Street and Adams Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: Wayne and Marianne Zippi, Walnut OWNERS: Same as applicants ENGINEER: Alpine Consultants, Inc., Laguna. Hills The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Todd Schooler, Architect for the applicants, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schooler concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A '. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Coastal Residential Ayes * * * Development Permit No. 19 and Resubdivision No. 465 subject to Absent * the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. MOTION CARRIED. A. Coastal Residential Devel=ment Permit: Approve the Coastal Residential Development Permit with the following finding: FINDING: 1. That the proposed development meets the requirements of Article 10.7 of the California Government Code and Section 19.10.130 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -4- COMMISSIONERS db \0§� November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX B. Resubdivision No. 965: FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDMONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. That the parcel map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of the construction project. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to the completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. • -5- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That the existing deteriorated curb and sidewalk be reconstructed along the East Bay Avenue frontage and that the property line monuments be reestablished. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits 8. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state . and local requirements. 9. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 10. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 11. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. -6- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES o a�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Resubdivision No. 971 Public H item No.3 8971 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for two - family residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 23, Block 233, Lake Tract, located at 303 33rd Street, on the northwesterly side of 33rd Street, between Marcus Avenue and Lake Avenue, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: John R. Petrie, Fullerton OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Goodman and Associates, Colton The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John Petrie, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 971 Ayes * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'.. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. -7- COMMISSIONERS � - o o� �Al � Cn 0 -10 November 7, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. That the parcel map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of the construction project. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. • 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the deteriorated curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along the 33rd Street frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from. the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 8- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I H INDEX 7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits 8. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimi d by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 9. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 10. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. is 11. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. :quest to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction a 3,822± square foot (gross) retail building and a 4,200± square A (gross) drive -in and take -out restaurant; and the acceptance of environmental document. Request to permit the construction of a drive -in and take -out restaurant facility in conjunction with a proposed retail commercial building on property located in Retail and Service Site No. 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposal also • 11111111 includes: a request to waive a portion of the required off- street 9- Item No.4 TS77 UP3424 Approved COMMISSIONERS Awa November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I Jill I INDEX parking spaces and to allow a portion of the required off - street parking spaces for the take -out restaurant to be provided within the proposed drive- through lane; a modification to the sign standards for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community so as to allow one ground identification sign which exceeds 4 feet in height; a third wall identification logo; and two additional ground signs (menu signs) which contain 32± square feet each and also exceed 4 feet in height. LOCATION: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 76 -45 (Resubdivision No. 506), .located at 4880 Campus Drive, on the southwesterly comer of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive, in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P -C • APPLICANT: Carl Karcher Ent. Inc., Anaheim OWNER: Elco Partners, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed Condition No. 14, Exhibit "A", stating That only two wall identification signs, one logo wall sign, one 6 foot high (50 sq. ft. per face) ground sign, and two drive- through menu signs ..., and he indicated that the subject signs were requested by the applicant. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Frank Duncan, 4350 Von Karman Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Koll Center Newport. He requested that the foregoing Condition No. 14 be denied on the basis that the Koll Center Planned Community Standards require a maximum 4 foot high monument sign, and the establishments located in Koll Center Newport adhere to the 4 foot height requirement. Mr. Duncan stated that if Condition No. 14 would be approved that it would set a precedent in Koll Center Newport. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the Taco Bell Restaurant, located in Koll Center, has a menu sign that exceeds the 4 foot height, and the applicant is also requesting -10- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES \11 dn� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX menu signs higher than 4 feet. Mr. Laycock indicated that the requested ground sign could be reduced in height to 4 feet. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Duncan replied that Koll Center Newport has jurisdiction over the establishments; that the applicant was not contacted regarding the sign requirements; and establishments within Koll Center Newport contacted him regarding the requested signs. Mr. Hewicker stated that it was not the intent to place the City's requirements in front of the Koll Center Planned Community Standards, and Koll Center Newport's concerns would have been addressed in the staff report if the problem had been brought to staffs attention. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, W. Duncan replied that the applicant owns the existing building, and the Koll Company controls the ground lease. He further replied that the Koll Company requests a 4 foot above grade maximum height ground sign, and lowering the height of the monument sign • would not restrict visibility approaching from any direction. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding Taco Bell's menu sign, W. Duncan stated that he would not object if the applicant installed a 5 foot high menu sign. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross with respect to a 20 foot pylon sign, W. Laycock stated that the applicant originally requested a 20 foot high pylon sign and the Planned Community Standards allows a 20 foot pylon sign for a restaurant in lieu of any other signs wherein the applicant revised the request to a ground sign so as to allow the additional signs. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Duncan replied that he would agree if Condition No. 14, Use Permit No. 3424, would be revised to state one 4 foot high (50 sq. ft. per face) ound sign. Mr. Mike Kilbride, 5515 River Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he expressed his concern with the size of the Jack -In- The -Box menu sign located near his home and he -11- COMMISSIONERS " ° November 7, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX requested that the applicant comply with the Koll Center Newport Planned Community sign requirements. Mr. Lorenzo Reyes appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Reyes concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "X. Mr. Reyes explained that fast food is considered an impulse purchase; that the peak business hours at the subject location would be during the mornings and afternoons; the traffic and population count in the area decreases considerably in the evening and on weekends and the proposed signage would attract first -time customers and pick up the impulse traffic; and a 4 foot high ground sign would be restrictive on the site. The requested additional signs are in keeping with the Carl's Jr. logo inasmuch as there are upper and lower case letters, and there is no mention of the type of service on the signage. Mr. Reyes stated that if the Planning Commission approved one 4 foot high ground sign that the measurement be taken from the top of the cabinet base as opposed to the tip of the star. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross with respect to the lease from The Koll Company, Mr. Reyes explained that the applicant is aware of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Standards, and the applicant has not agreed to abide by the Standards inasmuch as the lease has not been signed pending the results of the subject public hearing. Carl's Jr. is a leading advocate of pursuing alternate sign legislation inasmuch as signs are pertinent to fast food establishments. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Reyes explained that the proposed signage is necessary inasmuch as it is directed to customers that are not within walking distance or work near the fast food restaurant. In response to a question posed by Mr. Reyes, Mr. Laycock replied that the 4 foot sign would be measured from the top of the slope. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Duncan reappeared before the Planning Commission, and he replied that The Koll Company would agree to limiting the height -12- COMMISSIONERS o � o_ ern p �� 0 ` 0 November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INOEX of the mass part of the sign to 4 feet, and a 4 inch protrusion of the star. Mr. Reyes replied that the applicant would agree to the foregoing suggestion. Mr. Reyes further replied that the applicant intends to restripe the parking lot. Mr. Reyes and Commissioner Glover discussed access to. the site, and the financial impact Koll Center Newport's requirements would have on the establishment if the requested signage would not be approved. Ms. Chang Ching -Ching appeared before the Planning Commission: on behalf of the Plaza de Cafe, and she requested that Plaza de Cafe also be granted a 6 foot high sign. , She requested that the customers of Carl's Jr. not use the Plaza de Cafe's parking spaces. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. On * Motion was made to approve Traffic Study No. 77, Use Permit No. 3424, and related Environmental Document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", amending Condition No. 14 to state that the trademark star would be able to exceed the 4 foot height limit by 4 inches on the proposed ground sign. Commissioner Debay supported the motion. She encouraged the applicant to go about the process of changing the required signage in the Planned Community Standards inasmuch as the other Koll Center Newport establishments may support the applicant's request. Ayes * Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Absent ENVIRONMENTAL DQCUMENTv Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and requiring the following mitigation measures: Findin 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial • Study, comments received, and all related documents, there -13- COMMISSIONERS 03,x,.. ), November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 7535(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. • Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1.. The project's outdoor lighting system shall be designed to minimize light spillage on to the sites to the extent feasible. Prior to the issuance. of a building permit a licensed Electrical Engineer shall prepare electrical plans and submit a written certification to the Building Department that this requirement has been satisfied. 2. That prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Traffic Engineer that the intersection of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road has been restriped as described in the traffic impact study prepared for the project (TP0-077). • -14- COMMISSIONERS O �s1� sele �� November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL J1 1111 INDEX B. TRAFFIC STUDY: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary- modified; or 'primary' street after incorporating the mitigation measures as listed in the environmental document. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on six of the seven study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the seventh intersection indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90 can be obtained with mitigation at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. C. USE PERMIT NO. 34 Findin 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the waiver of the take -out restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter fencing and a portion of the required parking (7 parking spaces) will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed drive -in and take -out restaurant is part of a larger integrated development which is not conducive to such standards, but is designed in a way that meets the purpose • and intent of such design standards; and adequate parking -15- COMMISSIONERS dh CITY OF NEWPORT November 7, 1991 BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX is being provided on -site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding offices. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. Adequate provision for traffic circulation is being made for the drive -in and take -out restaurant facility. 6. That the proposed modification to the Koll Center Newport sign provisions allow two 5 foot high 32 sq. ft menu signs, one additional 5 square foot logo wall sign and one 6 foot high ground sign 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 or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3424 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions' 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, elevations and sign plans, except as noted below. -16- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES 09� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review. by the Traffic Engineer. 3. That the intersection of the private drive and Campus Drive provide sight distance in conformance with City Standard No. 110-L. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty- four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That the on -site trash enclosure and Edison transformer be relocated in a location acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer so that vehicular and pedestrian sight distance is provided. S5. That the proposed monument sign at the comer of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive be positioned so that sight distance is maintained in accordance with the City's sight distance standard 110 -L. 6. That sidewalk be constructed along the Von Karman Avenue frontage and connect to the sidewalk located on the westerly side of the access driveway located at the southerly property boundary. The sidewalk shall be six (6) feet wide meandering or eight (8) feet wide, constructed adjacent to the curb. That the existing curb. access ramp constructed out into the access drive be reconstructed so that the ramp is positioned behind the curb. The design of the revised access ramp shall be approved by the Public Works Department. That all work within the public right -of -way be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. That pedestrian access shall be provided from the Campus Drive entrance to the restaurant as approved by the Public • Works Department. -17- COMMISSIONERS o G O ern November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimised by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Campus Drive or Von Karman Avenue rights -of -way. 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 11. That the parking lot shall be lighted in such a manner as to prove adequate illumination to all areas of the lot without causing any light or glare to impact adjacent properties. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from adjoining streets. 13. That the development standards pertaining to walls and 7 of the required parking spaces for the take -out restaurant shall be waived. 14. That only two wall identification signs, one logo wall sign, one 4 foot high (50 sq. ft. per face) ground sign, (with a 4 inch portion of the trademark star to exceed the permitted 4 foot height) and two drive- through menu signs shall be permitted, in conjunction with the take -out restaurant. 15. That the proposed directional signs shall not exceed 6 sq.ft. and shall not include the restaurant name. -18- COMMISSIONERS \21 o dh November 7, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 16. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self = parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 17. That the service of any alcoholic beverages in the take -out restaurant facility is prohibited unless an amended use permit is approved by the City. 18. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 19. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, the City Traffic Engineer and Public Works Department. 20. That 102 off - street parking spaces (including the 10 spaces in the drive -up stacking lane) shall be provided. 21. That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 22. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 23. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 24. That grease interceptors shall be provided on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. -19- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 25. That exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 26. That one bathroom for each sex shall be provided and shall be made readily available to patrons of the facility during all hours of operation. 27. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090.A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 28. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, • safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. Variance No. 1178 (Public Hearinel Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the MFR (2178) District which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposed development provides the required amount of open space, but the location of the open space does not meet Ordinance requirements. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right -of -way as established by Districting Map No. 17, and to encroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said construction also proposes to extend beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue, so as to encroach an additional 6 inches on the fast floor and one foot on the second floor. -20- Item No.5 V1178 Cont'd to 1/9/92 COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES W ROLL CALL I I I H I I I I INDEX LOCATION: A portion of Block "D ", Corona del Mar, and a portion of Carnation Avenue (vacated), located at 319 Carnation Avenue, southerly of Bayside Drive and westerly of the midline of the vacated extension of Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: MFR (2178) APPLICANT: Robert S. Losey, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Robert Losey, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. • Mr. Eric Mossman, Architect for the applicant, 326 North Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission and he distributed photographs outlining the building. Mr. Mossman explained that the first floor roof eave is approximately at an 84 foot elevation, the elevation at the end of Carnation Avenue is 85 feet, and the visual for a 5 foot 6 inch person would be approximately at a 90 foot elevation. He said that the building appears to be one story from Carnation Avenue inasmuch as the building has been lowered approximately 25 feet, and 95 percent of the building is below the 28 foot height limit or 4 feet lower than the ridge height. Mr. Mossman addressed the vacated Carnation Avenue easement that goes through the property that encumbers 40 percent of the property, and the proposed 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the adjoining residential condominium project that has a 4 foot side yard setback. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the 10 foot front yards designated on the Districting Map are on Bayside Drive and vacated Carnation Avenue, that staff has no objection to the area adjacent to the adjoining condominium at a 4 foot setback instead of a 10 foot setback, and no objection to a 4 foot setback -21- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX along the property line opposite vacated Carnation Avenue. Mr. Laycock further explained that staff has no objection to the basement area inasmuch as it would be constructed below the grade of vacated Carnation Avenue. Mr. Mossman indicated that the impact of the public view from vacated Carnation Avenue would be minimal, and he described from the foregoing photograph the view of Begonia Park from vacated Carnation Avenue. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Mossman stated that the applicant would prefer Exhibit "A ", as opposed to Exhibit "B ", that denies a portion of the front yard setback and easement encroachments on the vacated Carnation Avenue side of the property. Mr. Mossman stated that if Exhibit "B" would be approved, that it would be his understanding that the applicant would be allowed to encroach the basement and the floor above inasmuch as the floor would be below the street level, and • the top level would be set back. Commissioner Debay and Mr. Laycock discussed the first level encroachment. Mr. Losey stated that the applicant would concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B" if approved by the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker referred to previous development on this portion of vacated Carnation Avenue and the consideration of maintaining the view at the end of vacated Carnation Avenue across Bayside Drive, and staff would object to anything from the ground up that would impair the view from the vacated street. He said that the Planning Commission and staff have previously required a 10 foot front yard setback on previous developments located on vacated Carnation Avenue. The basement level of the structure could encroach into the setback, but staff would object to any development in the required 10 foot front yard setback above top of curb on vacated Carnation Avenue. Mr. Mossman explained that the basement, fast and second floors are proposed to encroach into the 10 foot front yard setback. Mr. Hewicker explained the feasibility of an impacted view of Begonia Park from the street end of vacated • Carnation Avenue. He suggested a condition that would allow all -22- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX construction to come up to meet grade on vacated Carnation Avenue; however, with the construction going out toward Bayside Drive, the Planning Commission would be allowing the construction above the basement to protrude into the line of sight. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Mossman explained that an easement exists that goes down the center of vacated Carnation Avenue. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that when Carnation Avenue was vacated and became a private street, the area that was street was retained as a public utility easement area. Mr. Mossman stated that the applicant would provide a 25 foot sewer easement. Commissioner Gross and Mr. Hewicker discussed the 10 foot front yard setback as it appears on the Districting Map. Mr. David Diem, 180 Newport Center Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, as the property owner of the property located at the corner of Seaview Avenue and vacated Carnation • Avenue. He supported Exhibit'B" on the basis that the requested 10 foot front yard encroachment would block approximately 50 percent to 60 percent of the view of Begonia Park from his project; the public's view of Begonia Park would be impacted at the end of vacated Carnation Avenue; and the proposed development of 3,603 square feet as opposed to the 1,710 square feet that would be allowed in accordance with the Zoning Code is requiring inconsistencies as a result of the back side of the lot and the side of the adjoining property. Mr. Diem suggested that the application be continued so as to provide him an opportunity to meet with the architect to review the elevations. Commissioner Pomeroy agreed that it would be helpful if the property would be marked so as to allow the interested parties to review the property to be certain that there would not be an impact on the public view. Ms. Joyce Esernia, 2515 First Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the adjacent neighbors inasmuch as they are concerned with the encroachment on Bayside Drive nand how their view would be affected by the project. Mr. Laycock explained that the proposed development does not encroach into the required 10 foot front yard setback along Bayside Drive. Ms. -23- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES d 11� �p `F1�, �� qn CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Esernia expressed her concern that the project would extend out beyond the adjoining residential condominiums. Mr. Hewicker referred to the site plan and the proposed project's projection beyond the existing residential condominiums toward Bayside Drive, and he stated that the proposed development does not extend beyond the required 10 foot front yard setback on Bayside Drive. Mr. Todd Schooler, 214 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. He suggested that story poles be temporarily installed to determine the project's impact and for the consideration of all the interested parties. Mr. Schooler indicated that his property would not be affected by the project. Commissioner Glover agreed with the recommendation to temporarily install story poles. Mr. Art Pease, 338 Dahlia Place, appeared before the Planning Commission, as property owner of 314 Carnation Avenue, and he expressed a concern that the project would impact the view from his property. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public bearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy supported Exhibit "B'; however, he suggested that the applicant temporarily install story poles to see if a portion of the first floor could encroach into the 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to vacated Carnation Avenue without obstructing any views of the park. The public hearing was reopened, and Mr. Losey reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Losey preferred to continue Variance No. 1778 so as to install temporary story poles on behalf of the interested parties, and he agreed to continue the request to the January 9, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, W. Laycock replied that Exhibit "B" would approve a smaller structure i -Z4- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX than the applicant requested. She requested that the architect provide the structure's square footage based on Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Pomeroy suggested a story pole depicting the comer of the house so as to indicate the view impact that the proposed dwelling would have on the neighborhood. Motion * Motion was made to continue Variance No. 1178 to the January 9, 1992, Planning Commission meeting for the purpose of installing temporary story poles. Mr. Hewicker recommended that the applicant contact staff and staff would contact the Planning Commission when the story poles are installed. He requested that the applicant bring back photographs of the property when story poles are installed, including pictures of the concerned neighbors' properties, to the continued Planning Commission meeting for further review. * * * * * * Motion was voted on to continue Variance No. 1178 to the January Absent * 9, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. s * s The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:07 p.m. Variance No. 1179 (Public Hearingl Item No.6 Request to permit additions and structural alterations to an existing V1179 duplex which currently encroaches into the required front, side and rear yard setbacks, exceeds the allowable 2 times the buildable area Approved of the site and does not provide the required amount of open space on property located in the R -2 District. The application requests an increase in the square footage of living area and a decrease in the provided open space. -25- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL III Jill INDEX LOCATION: Parcel 3, Parcel Map 27-4 (Resubdivision No. 264), located at 7201 Seashore Drive, on the southwesterly comer of Seashore Drive and Nordina Street, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: Alan and Beverly Goode, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Todd Schooler, Architect, 500 North Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to questions posed by Mr. Schooler regarding Condition No. 5 in Exhibit "A ", Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that staff would not object if the roll-top curb • would be replaced with a square curb. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Schooler explained that several years ago roll-top curbs were constructed in the area and, at the subject site, the public is parking over the curb and covering a portion of the sidewalk. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that different types of curbs is not good planning and may not be in the best interest of the City. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Schooler explained that in 1971 the subject lots were realigned to face between the alley and Seashore Drive; however, the Districting Map was not changed, and now the applicants are requesting to retain the setbacks. He compared the 1971 building requirements with the existing buildable area and open space requirements on the lot. Mr. Schooler referred to an attachment in the staff report depicting comparisons of projects that were completed by Mr. Schooler in the adjacent area. -26- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Variance No. 1179 Ayes * * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION Absent * CARRIED. Mr. Hewicker commented that the variance would not have been necessary it when the lots had been reconfigured from one orientation to the other, the setback lines had been changed. He suggested that the Planning Commission give direction to staff that when staff is confronted with these types of situations, an amendment to the Districting Map be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council so as to relieve the property owner from applying for a variance. Commissioner Debay suggested that the Planning Commission allow staff to take action as recommended by Mr. Hewicker. FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same District inasmuch as the subject property is encumbered by required setbacks which are not consistent with setbacks as established by Modification No. 3% which was approved in conjunction with the existing project. 2. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicants, inasmuch as the proposed project is generally comparable to the size, bulk, open space and height to other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially . detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and _27_ I a \01- COMMISSIONERS \ November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 4. That the proposed new construction does not encroach into any required front yard, side yard, or alley setback, will not reduce the open space to an amount less than that otherwise required on a typical 30 foot wide lot, and will not under the circumstances of this 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 injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 5. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 6. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. 7. That the required number of parking spaces are provided on -site and the proposed additional square footage is an expansion of an existing room which is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. CONDMONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations except as noted below. 2. That the proposed gross structural area shall not exceed 2,864± square feet (with a maximum of 2,324± sq.ft. of living area and a maximum of 540± sq.ft. of garage area). -28- COMMISSIONERS oi�o November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL J1 1111 INDEX 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That the existing wall foundation be removed back to the building line at the corner of Nordina Street and the alley; that the existing curb located in the public right -of -way at the corner of Nordin Street and Seashore Drive be removed; and that a concrete sidewalk be constructed along the Nordina Street frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That the applicants shall obtain Coastal Commission • approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. That the landscaping and /or dead trees that are obstructing sight distance at the corner of Seashore Drive and Nordin. Street shall be removed. 8. That the 5 foot alley setback shall be maintained at the ground floor and that the second floor shall not extend out any further than currently exists. 9. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • -29- COMMISSIONERS rd o. o November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Modification No. 3928 (Public Hearing) item No.7 Request to approve a modification to the Zoning Ordinance so as Mod 3928 to permit the construction of a retaining wall, 11 feet 6 inches in height, topped by a tempered glass windscreen, 3 feet 10± inches Approved in height, for an overall height of 15 feet 4t inches on property located in the R -1 -B District. Said wall is to be located on 12 contiguous lots to within 15 feet of the front property line adjacent to East Coast Highway, where Districting Map No. 33 establishes required front yard setbacks ranging from 30 feet to 38 feet, and the Zoning Code limits such construction to 3 feet in height. LOCATION: Lots 2 through 13, Tract No. 3519, located at 4709 -4839 Cortland Drive, on the southerly side of Cortland Drive, easterly of Cameo Highlands Drive, in Cameo Highlands. ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT: Cortland Noisewall Trust, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Various property owners in Cameo Highlands James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the subject retaining wall would be located at the entry to the City of Newport Beach and would be one of the first items to be seen coming from Laguna Beach; the retaining wall is proposed to be a very tall structure, with tempered glass on top; and the retaining wall does not have to be built where the homeowners have requested inasmuch as the sound studies indicate that a wall could be built at the top of the existing slope and not necessarily out towards the right -of -way of East Coast Highway. He questioned how the proposed wall will tie in at either end with the existing walls so as not to leave an opening where sound could find a way into the yards that are to be protected by the proposed wall. The proposed wall is also not adequate in terms of height for pool safety purposes and if any of the property owners desired to install a swimming pool or a spa in the additional yard area that would be created by • building the proposed wall, the minimum heights and climbability -30- COMMISSIONERS 0 �o 1 ItNee November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX criteria would have to be applied to walls placed around bodies of water. The height of the side walls of each individual property could only be constructed to a height of 3 feet whereas the proposed wall is nearly 6 feet high, and any new walls along the side property lines to meet the retaining wall or to provide pool safety would be required to receive individual modifications to the Zoning Code. In response to questions posed by Chairman Di Sano, Don Webb; City Engineer, explained that inasmuch as the 11 -1/2 foot high retaining wall would totally cover up the slope facing East Coast Highway, it would significantly protect the slope. Mr. Hewicker replied that the property owners would not attain any additional land but the property owners would attain substantial flat usable yards adjacent to East Coast Highway if the retaining wall is approved. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker stated that the proposed retaining wall would not be adequate for pool safety because the wall is climbable. William Uycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the property owner would be prevented to construct a retaining wall into his own bank and to increase the property he has because the Zoning Code does not allow any fences or walls to exceed a height of 3 feet above existing grade in the front yard setback without a Modification, and the Zoning Code allows a 6 foot high wall in a rear yard setback. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy with respect to what staffs primary objection is regarding the proposed wall, Mr. Hewicker explained that the subject wall is designed to be a sound wall and a 6 foot wall at the top of slope would have accomplished the same purpose as the requested wall that is being moved out toward East Coast Highway. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Hewicker stated that The Irvine Company has made a contribution towards the cost of the wall. Mr. Webb stated that based on the type of wall that is proposed, the sound would not rebound across East Coast Highway inasmuch as the retaining wall is not a solid -31- COMMISSIONERS 0 o � c NF� November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX flat face and is not the type of flat surface that would give a reflection of sound. Commissioner Debay addressed Exhibit "B" and she pointed out that the conditions suggest that staff is only recommending a change of location. Mr. Laycock explained that a Modification to the Zoning Code would also be required if a sound wall exceeding 3 feet would be located at the top of the slope. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding Exhibit "B ", Mr. Laycock replied that the sound wall would be moved back 13 feet from the proposed wall, and the sound wall would be located where the existing 2 -1/2 foot high wall is located at the top of the slope. Mr. Laycock concurred with Commissioner Pomeroy that the sound wall would not address slope failures. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. C. R. Waxlax, 4801 Cortland Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In response to questions posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Waxlax concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", and the applicant would look into the appeal process if the Planning Commission approved Exhibit "B ". Mr. Waxlax stated that he was involved in putting together the compromises that numerous groups have made to get to the point where the application is before the Planning Commission. He explained that 13 property owners, Cal- Trans, The Irvine Company, Laguna Beach Water District, and Cameo Homeowner's Association are the groups that have been involved with the project. The retaining wall began as a search for a solution for three main problems including the stability of the steep slope that has erosion problems. The existing slope is ugly, and when Newport Coast is completed, the slope will look worse by comparison. The property owners enlisted a sound engineering company, and the results of the noise study determined that the sound level is 71.1 CNEL, the State of California and the County of Orange have a • limit of 65 CNEL, and the, proposed retaining wall would reduce -32- COMMISSIONERS 0 November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX the sound level to 60.4 CNEL. Cal -Trans stated that the property owners had a right to have the sound mitigated inasmuch as East Coast Highway will be widened by several lanes. Mr. Waxlax stated that The Irvine Company would contribute $300,000.00 to the construction of the sound mitigating wall, and the remaining cost of the wall will be borne by the 13 property owners. He said that The Irvine Company offered to construct a wall at the top of slope; however, the property owners chose to propose a wall at the Laguna Beach water easement which is adjacent to East Coast Highway at the bottom of the slope. Representatives from the Laguna Beach Water District pointed out the problems of building the wall on the easement, and the danger to the wall when the pipe is replaced. The property owners do not have any problems with the Water District's solution to move the base of the wall back an additional 4 feet from the easement. Mr. Waxlax stated that the Keystone Company designed a special method to construct the wall with two setbacks so as to provide attractive landscaping. • Mr. Waxlax responded to staffs concerns as follows: The placement of the noise wall is not required in the proposed location - the property owners asked Cal -Trans if a homeowner could be required to have the noise wall built inside his property line, and the property owners were informed absolutely not. The Irvine Company, when they offered to build the wall at top of slope, was informed the same thing. The Irvine Company was also informed that a property owner cannot be required to give up his property in order to have required noise mitigation completed, and The Irvine Company gave up the idea of offering to pay for a top of slope wall. The approval of the wall in the proposed location could set a precedent for other similar lots in the City - as far as the precedent that it would set for the slope that is east of Cameo Highlands Drive on East Coast Highway, the chances of anyone wanting to build a wall would be slim inasmuch as a similar wall project would be a major undertaking. Aesthetics of the proposed retaining wall - nothing is as ugly as the existing slope. The proposed wall is an outstanding design that would make a magnificent entrance to the City of Newport Beach. The original design for a vertical wall was nice, but staffs suggestion to step the wall back twice and plant landscaping will make a magnificent wall. -33- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to Mr. Hewicker's aforementioned concerns, Mr. Waxlax referred to pool safety. Mr. Waxlax stated that the proposed wall was designed for that purpose inasmuch as pools and spas currently exist, and the blocks on the wall will be constructed 16 inches above the current grade of the grass level, and on top of the 16 inches is a 46 inch high piece of glass, for a total height of 62 inches. The property owners are open to suggestions regarding the side yard walls meeting the retaining wall. In response to Mr. Hewicker's statement that the glass would be required to be 48 inches for safety requirements in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, Mr. Waxlax replied that the property owners would be flexible with their request. Staff concurred with Mr. Waxlax that 60 inches above grade is required, and Mr. Hewicker explained that there are sections within the 60 inches that has to be 48 inches non - climbable. Mr. Laycock explained that if the glass would be installed at the base of the concrete block wall, then the requirements would be met; however, the present location is not 48 inches. Mr. Waxlax stated that the property owners would comply with the foregoing requirement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Waxlax replied that the CNEL was measured over a 24 hour period. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. David Cooper, 4733 Cortland Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and Mr. Cooper described the foliage between Cameo Shores and the subject location. Mr. Cooper stated that bougainvillea has been the landscaping considered for the retaining wall. He indicated that if no glass would be installed at the top of the wall, the noise would not be mitigated, and the property owners would object to an extension of the block wall inasmuch as the home are located on view property. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Waxlax discussed several ideas, including a glass wall, that the homeowners had regarding the construction of side walls that would connect with the sound wall, and the type of landscaping that would cover the wall. Commissioner Glover requested that a time -34- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES 0 11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX frame be implemented that would require the applicant to plant landscaping so as to cover the bare wall. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the connecting walls, Mr. Hewicker referred to Lots 2 and 13. on the site plan, and he questioned what would keep the sound from coming into the property. Mr. Waxlax explained that the intent is to install glass across the top of slope across Lot 1, connecting the glass with the glass at the top of the proposed wall. On Lot 13, it is suggested that the glass stop where the wall stops, and the wall will dove -tail into the slope.. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the property owners could apply for a blanket Modification so as to construct connecting walls along the side property lines. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Waxlax explained that a sound wall for the area across Cameo Highlands Drive was not addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Coast Development inasmuch as East Coast Highway will not be widened in that area. Commissioner Gross questioned the amount of back filling that would be required behind the proposed wall and the feasibility of an Environmental Impact Report, and Mr. Hewicker explained that the hauling of dirt on City streets would be controlled through the issuance of a Grading Permit. Mr. Cooper and Commissioner Gross discussed the type of block that is proposed to construct the wall so as to enhance the landscaped wall. Mr. Webb explained the re- enforced earth that would be used to stabilize the slope. Mr. Waxlax and Commissioner Gross discussed the consideration of a cribwall or earthstone wall, and the advantage of a keystone wall. Commissioner Gross asked if the property owners would be willing to provide a bond for landscaping over a period of two to three years, and Mr. Waxlax replied that he did not have the authority to speak for 13 property owners or the Cameo Highlands Association; however, he would put up the requirement for the bond. Mr. Waxlax emphasized that all of the property owners in Cameo Highlands are concerned about the aesthetics of the project. -35- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Waxlax described the proposed retaining wall wherein he explained that each of the two setbacks are where the planting is proposed, and there would be two different levels in the wall where plants can take root and drape over the wall. He said that ivy could be planted at the base of the wall on East Coast Highway. Mr. Waxlax furtber replied that the Cameo Highlands Association would maintain the proposed wall. Mr. Mike Stephenson, representative of the Keystone Company, San Diego, appeared before .the Planning Commission and he described the vertical wall that was originally proposed by the applicant and opposed by staff. Mr. Stephenson described the proposed project from the plans that were on display, i.e., two 8 inch setbacks in two locations of the retaining wall, and cascading landscaping that would be planted into a cell that would be 16 inches long and 4-1/2 inches deep. He pointed out that a keystone wall is attractive and it may be a desire not to cover the entire wall with landscaping. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Stephenson explained that the irrigation would be provided by a line sprinkling system that would be set into the wall. Commissioner Gross asked Mr. Stephenson if he would be willing to provide a $100,000.00 bond at $2,000.00 per year for 5 years until the landscaping was in place, and Mr. Stephenson replied that he is not in a position to provide a bond. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Stephenson explained that the wall is proposed to be constructed as follows: beginning with one 4 foot 8 inch vertical wall, add two 8 inch planted setbacks, continue with one 4 foot 8 inch vertical wall, add two 8 inch planted setbacks, and finally one 5 foot 4 inch wall, topped by a tempered glass windscreen. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Stephenson replied that the proposed wall as described with the glass would total approximately 16 feet. Mr. Gary Malazian, 4827 Cortland Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission also as a landscape designer. He indicated there are several cascading vines that could be planted at the 4 foot -36- COMMISSIONERS - \5 November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX height levels that would cascade over the wall, and he stated that the keystone wall would be attractive if any of the wall would show. He said that he would provide the aforementioned bond if it would keep the City happy. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the design of the proposed landscaped vertical wall, and he determined that there would not be the softness of an angled wall. He asked if a compromise could be reached where there may be two or three additional steps that would pull the wall back two or three feet, and still provide the homeowners 10 extra feet instead of 14 extra feet, so as to mitigate the mass of the wall on East Coast Highway. Mr. Waxlax stated that the proposed wall is a significant compromise, and stepping the wall more than twice would detract from the aesthetics of the wall. Commissioner Pomeroy and Commissioner Edwards discussed the aforementioned suggestion. Commissioner Gross stated that he would oppose a large massive wall as proposed, and he supported Commissioner Pomeroy's suggestion. In response to Chairman Di • Sano's request, Mr. Stephenson compared the configurations of a landscaped keystone wall that was on display with the proposed retaining wall. In response to a concern expressed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Malazian explained that the Laguna Beach Water District has requested that the wall be moved back 4 feet from the easement as a safety margin and the 4 foot addition to the easement is where the base of the wall would be constructed. Mr. Peter Juteau, 4821 Cortland Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he explained compromises that could be made between the applicant and the Planning Commission with respect to the retaining wall and landscaping. Mr. Carl Robbert, 4633 Dorchester Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission as Chairman of the Beautification Committee. He suggested that different colored bougainvillea could be planted and attached along the wall, and he addressed the proposed irrigation system that would stimulate fast growth. Mr. Lewis Metzinger, 4715 Cortland Drive, appeared before the . Planning Commission. He said that his family does not entirely -37- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES 0 r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX enjoy the swimming pool in their yard because of the amount of dirt and noise that comes from East Coast Highway; and the proposed wall would beautify the City of Newport Beach. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover with respect to moving a portion of the wall back 3 feet as opposed to 16 inches on the two tiered levels and still retain the wall, Mr. Hewicker stated that if the size of the steps would be increased, it would cause a change in the way the wall is designed and retained, each step would require its own footing, and the locking ability would be lost in the way the retaining wall is currently designed. Commissioner Pomeroy explained that 8 inch increments could be moved back with a special block, the performance of the wall would improve, no footings would be required, and it would not harm the performance of the wall and would leave more area for planting. He explained that a benefit of the 8 inch step would be to cut down the vertical height of the wall. Commissioner Gross supported the concept of a retaining wall at the subject location; however, he opposed the mass of the proposed wall. He suggested the applicant meet with staff to work out a compromise and request a bond that the landscaping would be planted and take hold. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would not support the retaining wall as submitted based on the mass of the wall; however, he said that he would make a compromise of adding two or three steps that would lower the height of the wall in the intervening portion and move the wall back 32 inches if two 16 inch steps would be added, and lower each level by 16 inches. Commissioner Edwards concurred with Commissioner Pomeroy's compromise inasmuch as it would diminish the massive structure. He suggested a rendering of the proposed landscaped wall, and he recognized the increase in traffic noise on East Coast Highway. Mr. Malazian reappeared before the Planning Commission in response to Commissioner Pomeroy's suggestion wherein he • -38- COMMISSIONERS November7, 1991 MINUTES .� o r o e0o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX addressed the climbability of the retaining wall, and he questioned the sound attenuation. Mr. Waxlax reappeared before the Planning Commission so as to respond to the Planning Commission's suggestions. He said that the applicant would appreciate the opportunity to make compromises with staff. He suggested two 8 inch setbacks in the top two segments of the wall as an aesthetically pleasing idea, and the feasibility of moving the wall 2 or 3 feet towards East Coast Highway. Mr. Webb explained that the 4 feet from the easement on East Coast Highway is based on providing a wall that is deep enough so that it does not impact the water line. If the wall would move in closer to the easement line, then it would be necessary to deepen the footing of the wall inasmuch as for every foot that goes in it is necessary to go down a foot in the wall. The requirement states that the footing go up at a 45 degree angle from the easement line and not from the flow line of the pipe. *on * Motion was made to continue Modification No. 3928 based on the recommendations proposed during the public hearing, and he requested the applicant come back with landscape sketches of the proposal. Commissioner Gross suggested three sections of the wall with 3 foot setbacks, move the wall closer to the water easement, and required bonding for the landscaping. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to a sketch that he drew of a. retaining wall consisting of a reduction of vertical heights, the depth is mitigated but would be able to retain virtually all of the extra area, and the sound wall would be pushed back away from the houses. He opposed the idea of bonding inasmuch as the City has never requested a homeowner's association who has maintained their own slopes to guarantee how the slopes would be maintained. Commissioner Edwards supported Commissioner Pomeroy's suggestion of additional 8 inch steps, the cost would be cut down, the bulk of the wall would be reduced, and concerns about the sound reduction would be addressed. -39- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES c � q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Di Sano supported Commissioner Pomeroy's recommendation, and he suggested that a rendering of the landscape plan come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Glover supported Commissioner Pomeroy's recommendation. She addressed her concerns with respect to walls throughout the City of Newport Beach but the wall could be softened with proper landscaping. Commissioner Glover recognized the property owners attempt to resolve a problem by putting up their own funds to construct the retaining wall. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the applicant come back to the Planning Commission with a landscape plan prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. The public hearing was closed at this time. titute Substitute motion was made to approve Modification No. 3928 n * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", modify the conditions to state that a minimum of two additional 8 inch steps be added at the two locations where the wall is set back (for a width of at least 32 inches at both setback areas) to facilitate additional planting and to reduce the mass; and add a condition that the final landscaping plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Motion Commissioner Edwards withdrew his motion to continue Withdrawn * Modification No. 3928. Ayes * * * Motion was voted on to approve Modification No. 3928 subject to No * the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Absent A. Environmental Document Fin in 1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City policy. -40- COMMISSIONERS o' `o o p�� November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on'the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. 3. That an Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse • effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 CCR. Mitigation Measures: 1. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that the wall design contains elements to secure stability of the foundation in the event that any underground or excavation work is required in the vicinity of the retaining wall. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed structural engineer with a written verification that in his opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for review and approval of the Planning, Public Works and Parks Beaches and Recreation Departments. -41- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES o, 01 Y 0 Vr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL tNQEX 3. That prior to final inspection of the wall, a licensed landscape architect or landscape contractor shall provide written certification to the Building Department that the landscaping and irrigation system has been installed according to the approved plans. B. Modification No. 3928 Findings: 1. That the proposed construction will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use. 2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed • development. 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.81.060 of the Municipal Code. 4. That the proposed retaining wall with tempered glass windscreen will not obstruct views from adjoining residential properties. 5. That there is adequate space to provide landscaping between the proposed retaining wall and the 10 foot wide water easement along East Coast Highway. 6. That a noise wall has been required through mitigation measures of the EIR approved by the County of Orange for the widening of East Coast Highway, as it relates to sound attenuation for the subject property. -4.2_ COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, profile, elevation and section, except as noted below. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the proposed retaining wall be located a minimum distance of 4 feet behind the existing 10 foot wide water easement (14 feet behind East Coast Highway right -of -way line) and that the bottom of the retaining wall be constructed to a depth so that a line projected from the edge of the easement at the flowline pipe elevation at a 45 degree angle to the wall will not undercut the bottom of the proposed wall. • 4. That the wall be constructed in such a manner as to allow landscape materials to be planted in the wall at intermediate heights and that the area in front of the wall be fully landscaped with the installation of an appropriate irrigation system. That there shall be no trees planted within the water easement area. That the landscape plans shall be approved by the Planning, Public Works and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments. 5. That the Cameo Community Association shall be responsible for maintenance of the landscaping along the East Coast Highway frontage and shall execute an appropriate agreement providing for the maintenance of the landscape improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the proposed wall. 6. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall' be minimised by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment . and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state -43- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES cn�0 G \\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage of materials within the state rigbt -of -way. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, a parking plan for workers must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. 7. That the new grade established by the construction of the retaining wall shall be utilized for the purposes of measuring height in the required front yard setbacks. 8. That a minimum of two additional 8 inch steps be added at the two locations where the wall is set back (for a total of at least 32 inches at both setback areas) to facilitate additional planting and to reduce the mass of the wall. 9. That the final landscaping plan be reviewed by the Planning • Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. e•. Amendment No. 738 (Continued Public Hearinel item No.8 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code A738 so as to permit the sale of convenience items such as, but not Cont'd to limited to, soft drinks, candy, cigarettes, ice, magazines and snack 11/21/91 food, in conjunction with the operation of automobile service stations. The proposed amendment also includes: the requirement for on -site parking spaces for automobile service stations which do not have service bays, but do include the sale of convenience items; the addition of covered mechanical car wash facilities as a permitted activity; the requirement to provide rest rooms which are available to the general public for new automobile service stations; and the requirement for fuel price signs to be in compliance with, but not exceed the minimum price sign requirements set forth in the Business and Professions Code of the State of California.' INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach r -44- COMMISSIONERS db \011� November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No. 8, . Amendment No. 738, be continued to the November 21, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to allow staff additional time to prepare two ordinances to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 8 to the Ayes * * * November 21, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. sss Use Permit No. 1495 (Amended) Item No.9 Request to amend a previously approved Use Permit which UP1495A permitted the establishment of an automobile service station on property located in the Big Canyon Planned Community. The Cont ' d to proposal involves a request to upgrade the existing service station 11/21/91 • facility with architectural facade treatment and landscaping and the addition of a retail convenience store (mini mart) to the existing facility. Also included in this application is a request to amend the previous conditions of approval which limited the existing facility to a full service facility, so as to also permit a self - service use; to eliminate the requirement for food and other merchandise to be sold only in dispensers; and to allow additional price, logo and informational /directional signage associated with the proposed remodel and the new minimart that exceed permitted signage. LOCATION: Parcels No. 1 and 2, Parcel Map 33 -50 (Resubdivision No. 299), located at 1600 Jamboree Road, on the northeasterly comer of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, in the commercial area of Big Canyon. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Texaco Refining and Marketing, Los Angeles . OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach -45- COMMISSIONERS I \0 November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No. 9, Use Permit No. 1495 (Amended), be continued to the November 21, 1991, Planning Commission meeting so the application may be reviewed concurrently with General Plan Amendment No. 91 -3(C), a request to increase the permitted floor area limit to allow for the addition of a mini mart on the subject property. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 1495 Ayes * * * * * (Amended) to the November 21, 1991, Planning Commission Absent * meeting. MOTION CARRIED. : s : A. Amendment No. 743 (Public Hearing) item No.lo Request to establish Planned Community District regulations and A743 adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for Castaways • Marina; and the acceptance of an environmental document. Ts80 AND R972 Cont'd to B. Traffic Study No. 80 (Public Hearing) 11/21/91 Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 125 slip marina with support parking and accessory facilities in the Castaways Marina Planned Community. AND C. Resubdivision No. 972 (Public Hearing) Request to create one parcel of land for marina development in the Castaways Marina Planned Community. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 1, Tract No. 1125, located at 300 Dover Drive, on the northeasterly corner of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway on the Castaways property. • -46- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES � o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER/ SURVEYOR: Dulin and Boynton Surveyors, Signal Hill James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No.. 10, Amendment No. 743, Traffic Study No. 80, and Resubdivision No. 972 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 21, 1991, to allow staff additional time to review the tentative parcel map and prepare responses to comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 10 to the * * November 21, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION at * CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 11:25 p.m. and reconvened at 11:30 p.m. Amendment No. 742 P{ ublic Hearing) item Noll Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, A742 so as to establish specific provisions for the location and operation Denied of massage establishments within the City of Newport Beach, INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, referred to hand written page 25 of the staff report, regarding the location of massage operations, No. 12, The Getaway Spa, the zoning should . be corrected to M -1 -A District instead of the P -C District, should -47- COMMISSIONERS .a O O� November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX be corrected to "no" in the Conforms to Zoning District column, and page 3 of the staff report should be corrected to 14 of the 31 existing independent massage establishments are located in an appropriate Zoning District. Commissioner Debay addressed No. 2, page 3 of the staff report, with respect to businesses that consider massage establishments as ancillary uses, and she questioned why beauty salons were omitted from the list. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the list indicates uses that require use permits, and businesses that have gone through the use permit procedure would not be required to file for an additional use permit if a massage establishment were a use at that specific location. In many of the commercial areas, beauty salons do not require use permits in order to open for business. Commissioner Debay expressed her support of a massage facility in a beauty salon, and Ms. Flory explained that the massage facility would be allowed, but the use would require a use permit. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to No. 3, page 3, stating Independent massage establishments shall not be permitted within 500 feet of any public or private school, park or playground, civic cultural site or church site; or within 500 feet of any other massage establishment unless otherwise waived by the Planning Commission, Ms. Flory explained that 500 feet is a suggested distance that is commonly used under dispersal of adult type businesses or heavily regulated businesses. Commissioner Edwards addressed the requirement and Ms. Flory responded that studies indicate that a concentration of adult businesses cause property devaluation and other problems. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the staff report wherein he determined that in 1991, the number of existing massage establishments was reduced from 1990, and Ms. Flory explained that in reality there was an increase in the number of establishments; however, after the Police Department reviewed the Business License records, several establishments were purged because of duplicate permits or the establishments went out of business. • -48- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Glen Everroad, Business License Supervisor, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he explained that the numbers provided the Police Department from the Business License records reflected not only facilities that were licensed for massage services but facilities that provided massage services that were not required to be licensed through the Business License office, i.e. chiropractic offices, and physical therapy offices that are licensed by State agencies and preclude local licensing. The 54 licensed massage establishments within the City as referred to on page 1 of the staff report reflected not only massage establishments that were regulated through the Business License office as massage establishments, but also facilities that provide massage services that were not regulated but were licensed through business tax by the Business License Division. In reference to page 2 of the staff report indicating that there are currently 43 massage establishments in the City, Mr. Everroad explained that the 43 establishments are regulated through the Business License Division and do not include • chiropractic offices and massage therapists in their employ. Ms. Flory referred to her aforementioned comment regarding the increase in the number of massage establishments, and she referred to the staff report's chart of massage operations and the 10 or 11 massage establishments that have been in service for two years or less. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker explained that of the 43 massage establishments, 12 facilities are in locations where the establishment is an ancillary use. In reference to Commissioner Pomeroy's comments regarding the staff "report's statement In December 1990, ..... the Police Department had identified 54 licensed massage establishments within the City of which they estimated 37% to be operating as fronts for prostitution.., Ms. Flory explained that 37% was based on 54 establishments and the modified number would be 22 based on the aforementioned 43 establishments. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover with • respect to massage establishments as an ancillary use of beauty -49- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES db \S)l o o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX salons, Mr. Everroad explained that the Municipal Code provides specific exemptions for some professions that are licensed by the State of California, and inasmuch as the State Board of Cosmetology regulates their own establishments, they are not one of the exemptions provided. Included in the 43 massage establishments, 5 beauty salons provide massage services and are primarily cosmetology establishments. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Barry Rubin, 813 East Bay Avenue, and an employee of the Newport - Costa Mesa YMCA located at 2300 University Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. He expressed his support to separate prostitution from massage establishments through strict City and State regulations. In reference to the Police Department's memorandum dated October 30, 1991, to the Planning Department, W. Rubin questioned why illegal massage establishments referred to in the memorandum were not closed based on the violations. Ms. Sherry Lynch, 2230 Ohio Avenue, Signal Hill, appeared before the Planning Commission, President of the California Federation of Massage, and a Vice President of an International massage organization. Ms. Lynch addressed the request to permit massage establishments within specific zoning districts, and she pointed out that if the Amendment would be approved, licensed massage . therapists would be required to move their businesses. She stated that Newport Beach currently has the means to rid the City of prostitution. The proposed zoning would cost the City money to enforce, and it would cost licensed therapists money to move and to apply for a use permit. She questioned why the Police Department is currently unable to get convictions to close illegal establishments. She said that the proposed Ordinance would ask the licensed therapists to suffer at the hands of illegal prostitution. Ms. Lynch stated that she was involved with the drafting of the City of Irvine Ordinance, that she has been formally trained as a licensed massage therapist, and she emphasized that the licensed therapists are working hard to help the community understand the • -50- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I I1 t► i I I S INDEX legitimate massage therapists. She recommended that the existing Ordinance be modified to require continued education or national membership in a recognized massage organization. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Lynch explained that the City of Irvine Ordinance requires a massage therapist to have 500 hours from an accredited recognized State of California school or a recognized national school, and /or 300 hours of training from a recognized school and membership in a nationally recognized massage organization. She pointed out that to be a certified member in a national massage organization requires a difficult testing process. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the aforementioned Police Department memorandum states that 22 of the 43 massage establishments are fronts for prostitution. is Ms. Flory stated that the City of Irvine requires a use permit, and the subject City has 6 establishments. She said that the foregoing 43 establishments in Newport Beach takes manpower to investigate and to enforce the regulations. The City Council had a concern of so many massage establishments in the City and, on that basis, they requested an Ordinance that would keep the numbers from increasing. The use permit procedure was considered so as to locate businesses in commercial districts rather than light industrial districts, and the process would allow a review by the Planning Commission for the businesses that would not otherwise come before the Commission. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Flory explained that the City would be capable of putting conditions on the operation and recommending the revocation of the use permit. Mr. Everroad reappeared before the Planning Commission, and he stated that the City requires eacb individual massage therapist to provide 300 hours of State certified training to apply for a Business License, and it is not difficult to secure. The owner of an establishment is also required to be licensed. He explained that when there are violations of law, the City has the ability to revoke the individual's permit; however, the Courts often adjudicate prostitution arrest as trespassing, and the City is not able, for a prostitution arrest that is adjudicated as a -51- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX trespassing conviction, to revoke a license. He said that in 1990, there were 108 massage therapy applicants, and 178 applications have been processed in 1991. The licenses that have been revoked for violations have been replaced by new individuals, and the same is true for establishment operators. Mr. John Black, 4001 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission as an owner of a massage therapy establishment. He expressed his concern that the City is not closing down the illegal operations. Ms. Flory explained that red light abatement proceedings are very lengthy and are entitled to a jury trial, and the City is currently involved with that process against two establishments. Mr. Black rebuked that his massage therapy business should not be forced out of business because the City does not have the manpower to enforce the existing regulations. Ms. Flory explained that it would be more appropriate to have the businesses relocate from the M -1 -A District to a commercial zone. Mr. Black addressed the chiropractic business that provides • massage therapy adjacent to his licensed business. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Flory explained that the National and International Associations have very strict regulations for their members. She said that there would be a constitutional problem if individuals would be required to join associations. Commissioner Gross asked Mr. Black his position on. Provisions No. 1 regarding zoning, No. 2 requiring a use permit, No. 3 prohibiting establishments within 500 feet of specific uses, and No. 4 regarding the compliance of the aforementioned provisions, as stated in the staff report. Mr. Black replied that he would be hesitant to respond without applying certain conditions on each provision. He objected to No. 2 so as to remain an independent therapist; No. 3 because it would prohibit an establishment within 500 feet of any other massage establishment; and No. 4 inasmuch as he would have to relocate his business. Mr. Black explained that he helps people with stress management and health maintenance, that he is on the Board of the California Federation of Massage, and a spokesman of the legal issues committee. Mr. Black stated -52- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES \01, �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX that the proposed Ordinance does not separate the licensed and legalized massage therapists from the massage facilities that practice prostitution. Mr. Black stated that several members of Massage Organizations who met with Mr. Everroad and Ms. Flory recommended an addition to an Ordinance that drew a line between adult entertainment and health directed establishments. He explained that the therapists were asking for an exemption so they would not be put out of business because of individuals involved with adult entertainment. Mr. Black stated that the recommendation has been used in other cities and he indicated that the recommendation was not included in the subject report. Ms. Flory explained that the foregoing meeting was in conjunction with the Ordinance that will go to the City Council and is not being discussed during the public hearing. Mr. Black emphasized that the legal, licensed massage therapists need to be considered health directed professionals, and the prostitutes are adult entertainment. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that eliminating massage parlors in the City of Newport Beach would not necessarily eliminate prostitution, and that is what the City is attempting to accomplish. Commissioner Debay stated that if massage therapists could be grandfathered in the M -1 -A District, and if there would be a subsequent violation, the establishment could be required to relocate. Ms. Flory responded that amortization would be an acceptable procedure, and as existing businesses would leave, then new businesses in an M -1 -A District would not be allowed. The new businesses in the commercial area would be required to comply with the new requirements. W. Black stated that grandfathering would be an appropriate solution for him so as to give him an option. Ms. Lona Smith, 2481 Irvine Avenue, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission as a massage technician and owner of Shangri -La Spa that is currently located in an M -1 -A District at 4320 Campus Drive, Suite 190. She addressed the number of licensed massage establishments in the M -1 -A District, and she requested that the M -1 -A District be included in the proposed . Ordinance. The massage establishment has had no criminal -53- COMMISSIONERS db November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX activity, no convictions against the business or against the 6 massage technicians, and there has been no reduction in the property value, and is in good standing with the office tenants. She concurred with the aforementioned suggestion that the existing establishments could be grandfathered. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Ms. Flory explained that the exclusion of the M -1 -A District in the proposed Ordinance was a decision that was made by the Planning Department. Ms. Flory further replied that a use permit could be revoked for prostitution. Commissioner Debay expressed her support for the use permit procedure. Ms. Flory explained that the existing establishments would be required to go through the use permit procedure for review, and if prostitution was on the site, the business would be required to close. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano with respect to grandfathering Provisions No. 3 and No. 4, Ms. Flory explained • that amortization could be considered and grandfathering is a consideration. Ms. Shirley Henderson, 3847 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, inasmuch as her massage establishment is located in the M -1 -A District and she stated her support of the grandfather clause. Ms. Alma Carroll, massage therapist at the John Wayne Tennis Club for 16 years, appeared before the Planning Commission. She said that the cost of a use permit would be a financial burden to the therapists, and inasmuch as there have been no complaints against the health care massage therapists, they should not be penalized through the use permit procedure. She concurred that there should be some differentiation between adult entertainment massages and the individuals involved in the health care massage. Mr. Hewicker stated that she would not be required to apply for a use permit inasmuch as her establishment is an ancillary use. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support a waiver of the cost of a use permit for the existing establishments. Ms. Flory explained that the purpose of a use permit would not only be for -54- COMMISSIONERS November 7, 1991 MINUTES \0 �. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX enforcement, but it would also limit the number of businesses that would come into the City. Ms. Flory stated that the use permit runs with the land and not the operation, and she would have to reconsider grandfathering the existing establishments in the M -1 -A Distrim Ms. Sheryl Scialla, Vice President of the California Federation of . Massage, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the amount of the use permit fee. Mr. Black reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated that he opposed the amount of the use permit fee. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Ms. Flory stated that the City Attorney's Office is following the criminal procedures to the extent that the City has the manpower to do it; however, it is not the only way to stop the increased number of massage establishments that are coming into the City. Motion * Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 742 based on staffs recommendations, and Commissioner Glover stated that the Police Department should be allowed to proceed with other concerns without expending an inordinate amount of time spent on this problem. Commissioner Gross did not support the motion on the basis that there should be some changes to the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Gross and Ms. Flory discussed the use permit requirement that the operation would only be permitted to run with the land and would not be permitted to run with the business. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Hewicker replied that the cost involved with each use permit includes the submission of plans, the publication of public notices, preparation of staff reports, and the cost during the public hearing. Commissioner Pomeroy did not support the motion. He stated that the very basis of the subject request is incorrect, that there is no -55- COMMISSIONERS A cno"`�'�. q� �� November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX evidence that the level of prostitution in the City is going to be changed by the implementation of the subject Ordinance, and there is no statistical evidence from other cities that there was a reduction in prostitution after the Ordinances were approved. He stated that there is a class of people who are attempting to stay in business, and somehow those people are associated with people who are involved with adult massage parlors, and they are being subjected to a very restrictive Ordinance. He determined that there has to be a way to separate the two different types of businesses so the City can accomplish what is necessary. Commissioner Pomeroy said. the City is trying to manipulate information so the City can eliminate a massage parlor overall irrespective if the legitimate ones are involved because the City is concerned with the establishments that are not legitimate. Commissioner Debay did not support the motion inasmuch as the Ordinance does not address the problem. • Chairman Di Sano did not support the motion inasmuch as he would have recommended changes to Provisions No. 3 and No. 4, and a waiver of the use permit fee, and the changes would have put the Ordinance out of context of what was originally intended. Ayes * Motion was voted on to approve Amendment No. 742. MOTION Noes DENIED. Absent s.s s ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Ada l 1 Business Following a discussion with staff, the Planning Commission set Traffic Study No. 81 and Amendment No. 744 (the Master Plan for PH set development on the Hoag Hospital site) for public hearing at its for 12/5/93 meeting of December 5, 1991. s s • ADJOURNMENT: 1:10 a.m. Adjourn s NORMA GLOVER, SECRETARY CTTY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -56-