Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/1980COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AINUTES Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. -� Date: December 4, 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Present Absent X * X X X Chairman Haidinger was absent. * * * EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney * * * STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator William W. Ward, Senior Planner Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary * * * RPPROVAL OF THE MINUTES APPROVAL UF THE M MINUTES (Pon Ay X X X X Motion was made to approve the minutes of the Absent * Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 6, 1980 as written, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made to approve the minutes of the Ayes xx XX Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November Abstain X X 20, 1980 as written, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent * * * Staff advised that the applicant for Item No. 5, Resubdivision No. 671, has requested that this item be continued to January 8, 1981. Staff further recommended that General Plan Amendment 81 -1 be continued to the meeting of December 18, 1980. Motion X Motion was made to continue Resub.division No. 671 A11 Ayes, X X X X to January 8, 1981, and to continue General Plan Absent * Amendment to December 18, 1980, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * • -1- � m December 4, 1980 Of Beach f�INUTES i ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX Request to permit the construction of a second Item #1 floor deck that will encroach four (4) feet into the required 10 foot setback adjacent to MODIFI- Upper Newport Bay. CATION LOCATION: Lot 178, Tract 4224, located at N0. 2601 507 Morningstar Lane on the south- westerly corner of Polaris Drive I) and Morningstar Lane in Dover i APPROVED Shores. CONDI- ZONE: R -1 -B TI�LLY APPLICANT: Harry Armer, Jr., Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant APPELLANT: Same as applicant Mr. Bill Laycock referred the Commission to the petition attached to the staff report and stated • that the proposed room additions and present construction on the single - family dwelling are within the required setbacks and do not require a modification. He stated that only the second floor deck which encroaches into the setback alo the bay requires a modification approval. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Bob Ogle, representing Harry Armer, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Ogle ref.erre to the petition attached to the staff report and stated that of the five homeowners who had signed the petition, four have been contacted, and it was found:that these four homeowners do not ob- ject to the railing or.the sundeck. He read to the Commission a letter from one of the adjacent homeowners, Mr. Cecil Shirar,,stating that he was no longer in objection to the enclosure of the deck with the railing or any other portion of the construction. plans. Mr. Ogle stated that the deck is existing.and tha the proposed modification would be harmonious wit the neighborhood. He stated that the present dec without the railings is unsafe. He added that hi • neighbor who is opposing this case, Dr. Stanford, has.a similar deck which also encroaches into the required 10 -foot setback adjacent to the bay. He -2- COMMISSIONERS December 4, 1880 Ji n City of Newport Beach INDEX stated that he did not feel that the wrought iron railing would obstruct his neighbors' view or be detrimental in anyway. He also stated that the homeowners association and the architectural committee held a special meeting on this proposal and was approved unanimously. Commissioner Beek asked if the deck itself will modified. Mr: Ogle stated that the plywood sur- face:,has been replaced,.but has remained the sam width, depth and thickness. Commissioner Beek asked if this is.considered to be a deck or a roof. Mr. Laycock stated that it was originally constructed as a roof overhang. He stated that there are similar roof overhangs on Morningstar Lane which have such railings. Mr..L.aycock added that the City's current zoning standards prohibit flat roof overhangs in front yard.setbacks if said overhangs are potential de • Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Ogle to explain the proposed railing as found in the rendering and the plan. Mr. Ogle stated that the proposed railing will be one inch wrought iron columns on nineinch centers with a wooden cap. He added that it would be identical to Dr. Stanford "s rail ing on'-his deck. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr'. Ogle to explain the windows facing the deck. Mr. Ogle stated that there are windows facing the deck, one of which is a sliding glass door off of the master bedroom. He stated that an iron bar will be placed across the sliding glass door in order to conform to the requirements of the Uniform Build- ing Code, if this request is denied. Ms. Nancy Thornton of 505 Morningstar Lane appear before the Commission in opposition to this case. Ms. Thornton stated that her signature is on the petition in.question and that she was never con - tacted by Mr. Ogle, other than a letter she had received from his attorney. She stated that she is opposed to the extension of the balcony which was originally built as an overhang. She stated that the proposed five.foot encroachment will be • an invasion of her view. She added that her balcony does not encroach into the required 10- foot setback. -3- COMMISSIONERS December 4, 1980 4NUTES Ah x N w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL j 117DEX Commissioner Beek stated that in reviewing the plan, the wrought iron railing.would not appear to significantly encroach a view. He stated that) possibly any landscaping or plantings on the deck] may obstruct the view. He asked Ms. Thornton at what-point she feels her view would be obstructed) Ms.Thornton stated that she considered the ex- tension of the five foot encroachment to be an obstruction of her view. Mr. John W. Nelson, attorney for Dr. Stanford, appeared before the Commission in opposition to this case: Mr. Nelson stated that there will be a physical obstruction of Dr. Stanford's view. He stated that there has been a matter of pro- gression at the applicant's home, including the upgrading of the overhang and the installation of the sliding glass door; without the City's knowledge. He stated that this proposal and the current building, alterations will have a_detrime_n economic affect on the value of his client's home. . He.added that there are zoning requirements in the City to stop such actions. Dr. Ronald Stanford, owner of the property ad- jacent to Mr. Ogle, appeared in opposition to thi case. Dr. Stanford stated that Mr. Ogle's en- croachment will be approximately one and one -half feet further out than his balcony, which will ob- struct the view. He explained to the Commission the.other construction alterations that are cur - rently occurring on the applicant's site. He stated.that he will no longer have privacy on his deck and that as a result of the construction on the site,.his property value will decrease. Com- missioner Beek referred Or. Stanford to Page 2 of the staff report and stated that the section entitled "Petition of Opposition" should clarify some of the co.ncerns. Dr. Stanford stated that he-.has-read the staff report, but is still ob- jecting to the request. Commissioner Balalis stated that encroachment violations are common along this section of the bay. Dr. Stanford stated that when he purchased his residence 14 years ago, his balcony. and en- . croachment were already in existence. He stated -4- 1 x CL A December 4, 1980 Beach INDEX that the current rules and laws were not in ex- istence at that time, but that the current regu- lations. should be applied to the addition of this balcony. He.stated that his main objection is the addition of the second floor above the garage He stated that this will not be consistent with the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Balalis stated that the discussion on this evening's agenda should only concern.the project of the encroachment. Mr. Allan Bartz, attorney for Mr. Ogle, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Bartz stated that at the Modifications Committee hearing on October 21st, Ms.Th.ornton had no objections to the balco request: He stated that no extension of the balcony is being requested; only the approval of the hand railing. He added that -due to the loca tion.of her home, Ms.Thornton's view would not b obstructed. • Mr. Bartz stated that Dr. Stanford has an identi balcony and railing outside of his home. He sta that the very same .amenity should be afforded hi client. He stated that.the deck would enhance t economic value of the neighborhood and be con - sistent with the other homes in the neighborhood not a detriment. He stated that.all necessary permits have been obtained through the City for all other construction performed on the site. H added that this request would afford the applica with a reasonable use of his property. Commissioner Beek asked if the ;applicant.would agree to a condition of approval that there be no climbing vines or landscaping placed on the deck or the railing. Mr. Ogle stated that he would agree to such a condition. Commissioner Allen referred to the staff report and asked legal counsel to explain Finding No. 2 of Exhibit "A" wherein it states, "that the pro - posed construction will not obstruct views from adjoining properties." She stated that this woul appear to be an impossible finding to make becaus the proposal would obviously obstruct views from • adjoining properties. Mr. Burnham stated that -5- December 4, 1980. 9 :. CD 9.0 �D GtV Of Beach 4NUTES I i INDEX this finding would not be necessary. He added.' that a significant obstruction of the view would not occur with the wrought iron railing.. Motion Motion was made the decision of Modification No. as found in the No. 2. by Commissioner Thomas to uphold the Modifications Committee on 2601 with the findings of denial staff report, but deleting Findin Commissioner Thomas stated that a- domino affect seems to be establishing in this area with regard to the encroachments. Vice-Chairman-McLaughlin stated that she could no support this.motion because she has visited the project. She stated that the roof overhang is very minimal and that the wrought iron rail will be the same as the other railings as found on oth waterfront residences in the area. SoRtitute Substitute motion was. made by Commissioner Balali M ion to "approve Modification No. 2601 with the finding and conditions of Exhibit "A ", but deleting Finding No. 2. Commissioner Balalis stated that he was making this substitute motion on the basis that the en- croachment already exists, and that the only thing missing is the wrought iron railing. He added that he is not condoning that the applicant has already installed the sliding glass door. He also stated that encroachments in other locations have occurred since the inception of this particu lar area, and that the applicant should be grante the same encroachment rights. Commissioner Beek stated that a new application for construction of a roof overhang of this natur would be denied under the current regulations as overhangs of this nature leads to these types of problems. Staff concurred. Commissioner Beek stated that it is clear that a precedent would not be set by approving thi.s request. Commissioner Allen asked staff to explain why the • Modifications Committee denied this request un- animously. Mr. Laycock stated that the Planning am Hrvii x w ROLL CALL December 4, 1980 of Newport Beach INDEX Commission and the City Council has given the Modifications Committee guidelines that modifica- tions should not be approved based on precedence or other similar encroachments in the area, but rather on the -cases own merits. He stated that in this particular case; it was determined by the Committee that this encroachment may obstruct the view from adjoining properties. Amendment X Amendment was made by Commissioner Beek that Acceptance Condition No. 2 include the wording, "that the owner shall not permit any climbing =vines to grow upon-the hand rail, nor place any landscaping on the balcony: 11 Commissioner Bal.alis accepted the amendment to his substitute motion, but questione the enforceability of such a condition. Ayes X X X Amended Substitute Motion for the approval of Noes X Modification No. 2601 was now voted on as follows Absent * which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of Modification No. 2601 will not be detrimental to persons, property, and improvements in the.neighborhood, and that the applicants request would be con- sistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the requested 4 foot encroachment into the front (water-side) setback is comparable to similar existing encroachments on sur- rounding properties. CONDITIONS: 1. That construction be in substantial conform - ance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations. 2. That the required handrail for the second story deck shall be of open wrought iron construction and that the owner shall not permit any climbing vines to grow upon the • handrail, nor place any landscaping on the balcony. -7- C MISSIC)N1ERSJ December 4, 1980 MINUTES Ji W HN City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That this approval is for the subject second floor deck encroachment adjacent to the New= port Bay frontage.on the site only. All othe construction or remodeling of the existing dwelling unit shall conform to required setbacks. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and the applicant, Mr. Derek Niblo, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Niblo stated that this plan was designed prior to the enactmen of Ordinance No. 1856. He stated that two of the car spaces are of the required dimensions and that the third parking space is proposed to be 16 feet 6 inches long by 8 feet wide. He 'stated that in addition to the three spaces, the garage was designed for a work bench or bicycle storage. The plan also provides for boat storage along the side of the garage. The idea `of the plan is to maximize the amount of storage space inside of the property and development of proper proportion for the rooms, open space and patio. Mr. Niblo stated that the plan was submitted after Ordinanc • No. 1856 had been passed which requires the thir space to be a length of 19 feet and a width of s Request to permit the construction of a new Item #2 single - family dwelling that is proposed to provide a substandard third parking space 16 MODIFI- feet 6 inches long by 8 feet wide, where the CATION Code requires a length of 19 feet-and a width NO. 2616 of 9 feet 4 inches. (Appeal) LOCATION: Lot 208 and a portion of 207, Tract 907, located at 210 Via San APPROVED Remo on the easterly side of Via CONDI- San Remo, between Via Lido Nord TIONALLY • and Via Lido Soud on Lido Isle. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: Derek and Cynthia Niblo, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants APPELLANTS: Same as applicants The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and the applicant, Mr. Derek Niblo, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Niblo stated that this plan was designed prior to the enactmen of Ordinance No. 1856. He stated that two of the car spaces are of the required dimensions and that the third parking space is proposed to be 16 feet 6 inches long by 8 feet wide. He 'stated that in addition to the three spaces, the garage was designed for a work bench or bicycle storage. The plan also provides for boat storage along the side of the garage. The idea `of the plan is to maximize the amount of storage space inside of the property and development of proper proportion for the rooms, open space and patio. Mr. Niblo stated that the plan was submitted after Ordinanc • No. 1856 had been passed which requires the thir space to be a length of 19 feet and a width of s December 4, 1980 x w. Nip IFGtVOf Beach INDEX 9 feet 4 inches. He stated that this new parking requirement will adversely affect many of the lot in Lido Isle and requested that Ordinance No. 1856 be re- evaluated. Mr. Willis Longyear, Board Member of the Lido Isl 'Community Association appeared before the Com- mission. He stated that the Association has written to the City on three different occasions reaffirming their objections to.the new parking ordinance. -He stated that part of the problem is to encourage people to park their cars in the garage, not to make more garages. He stated that under the new ordinance, the entire frontage of the lots on Lido Isle will be garage spaces. Motion Motion was made to approve Modification No. 2616 All Ayes X X X X with the following findings and conditions, which Absent * MOTION CARRIED: FTNDINGS: 1. .That the proposed third required, substandard sized parking space and the two proposed full sized- parking spaces represent a logical use of the property that would be precluded under the normal zoning requirements of the distric That the proposed substandard garage space, in conjunction with the construction of a new single family residence will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons re- siding or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbor- hood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed.modifications is consistent with-the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con - formance with the approved plot plan,.floor plans and elevations. 2. That all three garage spaces shall be utilize for vehicula.r storage. MR COMMISSIONERS December 4, 1980 INUTES 4 of City Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Vice- Chairman McLaughlin stated that during the study session, it was decided.to set for public hearing on January 8, 1981, suggested amendments to Chapter 20.of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to residential parking standards. * * Request to permit a required third parking space Item. #3 in the sideyard to be 8 feet wide where the Code requires 9 feet 4 inches in conjunction with the MODIFI- construction of a single family dwelling. CTTION NO. 2619 LOCATION: Lot 3, .Block 10, Tract 62.6, located at 1423 West Bay Avenue on the APPROVED southerly side of West Bay Avenue CONO— between 14th Street and.15th Street TIONALLY. on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Glen G. Rymer, San Bernardino OWNER: Same as applicant . The public hearing was opened in connection with .this item and Mr. Jose Aran, architect for the project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Ara stated that the parking problem was discussed wit the staff during the summer. He stated that the plan was submitted as part of a building permit application and that a modification to the Zoning Code has been applied for the substandard width parking space. Commissioner Beek stated that at the time this plan was reviewed by the staff in July, the re- quirement was a width of 18 feet inside the garag , and a width of 8 feet for the carport (if a modi- fication were approved for the substandard parkin space). The requirement has now been reduced to 17 1/2 feet inside measurement, for a two car garage. He asked if a width of 8 1/2 feet on the outside.would be a reasonable design solution for the third required parking space.. Mr. Aran state that this would be possible. Motion X Motion was made to approve Modification No. 2619 All Ayes X X X with the following findings and condition, which �ent * t MOTION CARRIED: -10- CALL December 4, 1980 FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed parking design is a logical use of the property that would be precluded under the normal zoning requirements of the District. 2. That the-proposed third.required parking spac as designed will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of such 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 and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITION: • 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations. 0 Request to waive a portion of the required park- ing spaces in-conjunction with the proposed additions and remodeling of an existing single family dwelling sous to allow only two on -site pa'r'king spaces where three are required by Code. LOCATION: Lot 51, Tract 1102,. located at 2571 Waverly Drive on the north- westerly side of Waverly Drive between Bayshore Drive and vista Drive in Bayshores. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Stephen and Wendy Bowie, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant -11- INDEX Item #4 VARIANCE N0. 1082 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY 3 N CALL Motion Ayes Noes Absent 0 0 December 4, 1980 LI The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Stephen Bowie, the applicant, ap- peared before the Commission. Mr. Bowie stated that a hardship would be created if the already completed plans would have to be redesigned. He stated that due to the change in the ordinance and the timing of this request, an exceptional circumstance has been created. He added that approval of this variance will not, in anyway, adversely affect the neighborhood. Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1082 with the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: T. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land referred to in the application which circumstances or conditions do not apply,-generally to land in the same district in that the subject lot does not provide adequate space for the third parking space. 2. That the granting of the application is neces sary for..'the.preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant in that the City has.amended the Municipal Code pertaining to parking spaces in resi- dential districts after granting an initial "Approval in Concept" for the expanded resi- dence. 3. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. That the- granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particula case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the property of the applicant and will not, under the circumstanc of the particular case, be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. -12- INDEX C MISSIONERS1 December 4, 1980 Nv NL1TES F City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL i INDEX CONDITIONS: I1. That.development shall be in substantial con - formance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That the two -car garage be kept free and clear for the parking of automobiles at all time. * * * Request to create two parcels of land for single family residential development where a portion of one lot now exists, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 28, Newport Heights LOCATION: Lots 59 through 67, Tract 673, located at 3901 East Coast Highway • on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Hi.ghway and Hazel Drive, in. Corona del Mar. -13- Item #5 RESUB- DIVISION NT.--671— Continued Item #6 USE PERMI APPROVED ONE TIIIONE LLY Tract, located at 647 Irvine Avenue on the westerly side of Irvine Avenue'betw.een Margaret Drive and • Holly Lane, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Paul Herrick, Costa Mesa OWNER: Robert F. McGiffen, Newport Beach Staff advised that the applicant has requested that this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on January 8, 1981. Motion Motion was -made to continue Resubdivision No. 671 All Ayes K X X X X to January 8, 1-981, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent * * * Request to change the operational characteristics of an existing restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages located in the C -1 District with existing related parking in the R -1 District so as to include live entertainment and dancing in conjunction with the restaurant use. LOCATION: Lots 59 through 67, Tract 673, located at 3901 East Coast Highway • on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Hi.ghway and Hazel Drive, in. Corona del Mar. -13- Item #5 RESUB- DIVISION NT.--671— Continued Item #6 USE PERMI APPROVED ONE TIIIONE LLY WISSIONERS December 4, 1980 m City of Newport Beach IMIMM ZONE: C -1 and R -1 APPLICANT: Carlos Lamas, Corona del Mar, OWNER: Katherin S. Finch, 'Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this request, and Mr. Derum; representing the owner, Mr. Lamas, and Manager of the La Selva Restaurant. Mr. Derum stated that they were in agreement with the staff's recommendation. Vice- Chairman McLaughlin asked how the noise from the music and entertainment would be controlled. Mr. Laycock stated that staff has suggested as a condition of approval that the - proposed live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the building and that there shall be-no sound amplification used outside of the structure. • Commissioner Allen asked staff to explain the Municipal Code requirement which provides for a minimum 400 square foot dance floor. Mr. Laycock I 1111 stated that this is a requirement for a Cafe Dance Permit which the applicant must obtain. Commissioner Allen stated that she is concerned with the parking situation and the safety of the adjoining neighborhood. Mr. Laycock stated that this particular site is physically set aside from the adjoining streetsand that the valet parking system should be able'to handle the park ing in the large parking area at the rear of the restaurant. Commissioner Allen suggested that a condition of approval include that the valet pai^king shall be required to park, on -site. Commi= ssioner Beek asked staff to explain why the .ratio of one parking.space for each 40 square 'fee of net public area is appropriate °for:this use. Mr. Laycock stated that in this particular case, the restaurant is a nonconforming use with regard to the number of parking spaces on -site. He stated that staff felt that.the applicant had, more than.adequately, closed enough public space within the restaurant facility that could have bei • utililzed as dining and drinking areas, and that the one parking space for each 40 square feet -14- go OW (a CALL December 4, 1980 ZI ma 21910 of net public area was a good compromise. Commissioner Beek asked staff how.his request for a valet parking ordinance was progressing. Mr. Burnham stated that he had not received any direction from his office on this matter. Mr. Laycock stated that he would be checking into this matter. Commissioner Balalis referred to Condition No. 3 for approval in the staff report and asked why the hours of 9:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m..were included Mr. Laycack.stated that these were the hours that the owner had requested for the dancing and en- tertainment. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Deru if they would like to reconsider these hours at this time. Mr. Derum stated that they would possibly like to include music with their Sunday brunch. Commissioner Thomas.stated that he was concerned with the grading of the slope. Mr. Laycock state that slope failure occurred on the subject pro- perty with the previous owner. Commissioner Thomas stated that the slope should be stabalized because a significant amount of saturation will cause another sl.ope.failure. Mr. Burnham stated that maintaining the slope would be an appropriat condition of approval. Motion X Motion.was made to approve Use Permit No. 1965 with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" with the additional conditions, that the slope be maintained and planted to prevent significant erosion and slope failure, and that the valet parking be required to park on- site. Commissioner Balalis stated that if the applicant wanted music during the dinner hour, -the hours requested for the entertainment should be revised at this time. He suggested that possibly Conditi No. 3 should not be limited to beginning the musi at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Lamas, the owner of the restau- rant,:stateMd that they were in agreement with thi • change and that they would also like to have musi during the Sunday brunch. Mr. Lamas also stated -15- x December 4, 1980 Of Beach that the slope has been graded and seeded pro- perly and that they would have no objection in maintaining the slope. Commissioner Beek stated that he would like to have.the dancing stop at 1:00 a.m. rather than 1:30 `a.m. Mr. Lamas stated that he preferred that the dancing be permitted until 1:30 a.m. Commissioner Thomas stated that 1:30 a.m, is appropriate. Amendment X Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek that the restaurant close at 1:00 a.m. and that the dancing can begin at 9:00 p.m., consi- deri'ng.thi.s use and its location to the residenti neighborhood. Not Accepte Commissioner Thomas stated that he would not acce Commissioner Beek's amendment to his motion. Com- Addition to missioner Thomas stated that he would add to his the Motion motion the condition that the dancing and enter- tainment shall go no. later than 1:30 a.m. Ayes X Commissioner Beek requested that the amendment Noes K X X K X be voted on, which MOTION FAILED. Absent Motion by Commissioner Thomas to approve Use Perm Ayes X X X % No'. 1965 with the added conditions and subject Absent * to Exhibit "A" as follows, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED: 0 FINDINGS: That the existing restaurant use is con- sistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with sur- rounding land uses. ?. The change in operational characteristics will not. create any significant environmental impact. The Police Department has indicated that th do not-contemplate any problems with the addition of dancing and live entertainment. -16- INDEX December 4, 1980 Fir W! 11 Citv of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I 11 I Jill I I INDEX 4. That the recent elimination of 1553 square feet of net public area by the applicant has significantly reduced the number of potential patrons and vehicles with a concomitant re- duction of the impact to adjacent residential area. 5. That adequate off - street parking is being provided for the restaurant use. 6. The.approval of Use Permit No. 1965 will not under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of perso residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood'or the gene al.welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: . I.. The development shall be in substantial con - formance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. The valet parking shall be provided at all times during the hours of operation of the restaurant facility. Said valet service shall be required to park all automobiles on site and not on adjoining property or street 3. That the dancing and entertainment shall not be permitted later than 1 :30 a.m. 4. That parking be provided and maintained on -- site at the ratio of one parking space for each 40 square feet of "Net Public Area ". 5. That a Cafe Dance Permit shall be approved by the City. 6. That the proposed live entertainment .shall be confined to the interior of the building. 7. That there shall be no sound amplification used outside of the structure. 8. That buildng permits shall be issued for • all construction on the property. -17- w IC December 4, 1980 Beach That employees shall be required to park on -site. 10. That the slope at the rear of.the property be maintained and planted to prevent signifi cant erosion and slope failure. IThe.Planning Commission recessed at 9 :00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. INDEX Request to expand the "Net Public Area" of an Item #7 existing restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages located in the C -1 District, so as USE PERMI to include an outdoor eating-area in conjunc - NO. 1966 tion with the restaurant use. Said application also includes °'a request to pay an annual fee • to the City for that portion of the off= street. NOT APPROVED parking spaces required for the proposed expansio in a nearb munici al lot in lieu of TIE VOTE Y P providing the additional parking on -site. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, of Parcel Map 107-40 (Resub. No. 552) located at 3201 East Coast Highway:on the westerly side of East Coast Highway at the ea- sterly terminus of Bayside Drive in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Hungry Tiger, Inc., Van Nuys OWNER: John D. Lusk & Son, Irvine (Long Term Lease Holder) Mr. Laycock referred the Commission to the peti- tion in the staff report from the Corona del Mar Bi,ke.Shop. He stated that the in -lieu parking fee concept does not assign parking spaces in the City parking lot. The in -lieu fee itself goes into the general fund and the parking in the Municipal lot will remain the same. Vice- • Chairman McLaughlin stated that there would be no change in the existing parking in the Municipa parking lot. -18- vvu��ivrvcrt� December 4, 1980 3 ` y City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Beek asked if the in -lieu parking program would include a grandfather clause or, if the applicant would have to pay in -lieu fees as they were raised. Mr. Laycock stated that this would depend on the in -lieu study that would be approved. Commissioner Balalis stated that II is quite obvious that there is a parking problem in this particular area in Corona del Mar. He stated that some means of parking, or alleviating the problem needs to be answered, rather than just the collection of the in -lieu fees. Therefore, he stated that if this request were to be ap- proved, an added condition should be made that this application not be grandfathered, and that the applicant be agreeable to a review so that the in -lieu fees would be more in conformance with what has been decided. Commissioner Cokas.stated that there are only 22 on -site parking spaces available to the restauran • but that-84 spaces would be required if the resta urant were constructed under current.parking standards. Staff concurred. Commissioner Cokas stated that approximately 70 percent of the parki will have to be off -site. Mr. Burnham stated that Condition No. 2 deals with the in -lieu fees. He stated that the way in which the.condition reads, would not provide for a grandfathering of the charges. He stated that he wo.uld assume that at the time of the annual renewal,'the applicable fee would be charg to the.-applicant. Commissioner Balalis stated that all of the in -lieu fees are on an annual basi.s and that it was his understanding that these were grandfathered. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Jim Mathewson, President of the Hungry Tiger, appeared before the Commission. Mr Mathewson :stated that the restaurant currently exists a.nd has very adequate surrounding parking, combined with the 22 on- site parking spaces,. He stated that there is a contiguous Municipal lot which has approximately 35 spaces, another Munici pal lot across Larkspur Avenue.with 22 spaces, in addition to approximately 22 spaces that can • be used in the evening at the United California. Bank parking lot. He stated that the -19- December 4, 1980 = F W City of Newport Beach INDEX maximum seating at the restaurant will be approxi mately 200, including a small bar area. He state that it will only be a dinner house, with no dancing. Mr: Mathewson stated that they had con - sidered valet parking, but many people will not use valet parking when there are parking spaces available. He also stated that he is concerned with the uncertainty of the charge for the in- lieu fees. He stated that if the in -lieu fees are raised considerably over the next couple of years, the size of the restaurant may not justify the operation as planned. Commissioner Beek stated that there is quite a problem with eommercial.parking in Newport Beach and that fin -lieu fees are charged to the uses which do not provide adequate parking on -site. He stated that this system is currently being studied by the Planning Commission. He added that in order to acquire these lots for parking, • actual acquisition costs must be charged. Mr. Mathewson stated that the Bank is agreeable in making alternative arrangements concerning the parking. Commissioner Balalis stated that an off -site agreement with the Bank would be re- quired, if this is the case. Commissioner Balali asked Mr. Mathewson if he had any objection to the purchase of 8`in -lieu parking spaces. Mr. Mathewson stated that he does not object to the current price of the in-lieu fees at $150.00 per space, but is concerned with the uncertainty of the raise in those fees. Commi.ssioner Balalis asked if the 8 spaces could be provided by valet parking on -site. Mr. Laycoc stated that this may not be possible because of the shape of the parcel. Vice- Chairman McLaughli stated that the parcel is the shape of .a pie wedg Commissioner Beek asked if the 8 in -lieu spaces would still be required if an arrangement could be made with the Bank for the additional parking. Mr. Laycock stated that the Bank would need these spaces during the day and that this would neces- sitate the restaurant to open at 5:00 p.m., rathe than 11:30 a.m. as requested. He stated that thi -20- CALL 0 • December 4, 1980 R F. N1 City of Newport Beach ould also require an off -site parking agreement. r. Mathewson stated that they intended to be . pen for the lunch hour. Commissioner Balalis asked about a tandem or vale parking arrangement. Mr. Laycock stated that the City requires that parking ,spaces be.useable and accessible, but that tandem parking spaces are pe mitted with the approval of a modification. Com- missioner Balalis stated that possibly a positive solution will be reached on the in -lieu parking fees study. Mr. Mathewson stated that originally, the resta- urant.had. outdoor dining, and that they are now requesting outdoor dining because of its good location in.Corona del Mar. Commissioner Beek suggeisted that possibly an indoor portion of the dininig area could be closed to compensate for the addition of the outdoor dining area. He stated that in this way, the extra parking spaces would i not be required. Mr. Mathewson stated that the riestaurant is already very small, and that the economics would not warrant :a decrease in the seating capacity. to t of o that area al re appe ther area addi to u with area only a de Comm is b City Mace, owner of the Corona del Mar Bike appeared before the Commission in oppositio s item. Mr. Mace referred to the petition osition in the staff report He stated he noon -time parking in this particular s extremely critical in that there are y other restaurants in the close proximity. ul Ro.lfus, owner of an.apartmen.t complex the street from the Municipal parking lot, ed before the Commission. He stated that is a• substantial parking problem in this nd t4at the proposed.u.se would present an onal problem for his tenants who also have the Municipal lot at times. He' concurred r. Mace that the noon -time parking in the s critical. He stated that the restaurant as 22 on -site parking ,spaces, which .leaves cit.of 62 parking spaces, not just 8 spaces sioner Beek ng reviewed, arking lots. stated that the parking problem in order to establish more He asked Mr.. Rolfus how many -21- INDEX m w December 4, 1980 Of Beach INDEX parking spaces per unit he would consider to be adequate for a residential unit. Mr. Rolfus stated -th-at the current requirements for two parking spaces for an apartment unit is realistic He stated that any new residential construction should be required to have two spaces. Commissioner Thomas stated that there-is a parkin problem in the area and .that a solution will have to be found for the off - site parking ' arrangements if this item is to be approved. Mrs. Luvena Hayton,a business merchant located at 3411-E. Coast Highway, appeared before the Com- mission in opposition to this case. Mrs Hayton stated that the City does not have 8 parking spac to sell. She stated that if 8 spaces are to be sold, 'then 8 more spaces would have to be provide She stated that the parking at this location is already inadequate. She also stated that the • outdoor seating would be adjacent to the busy highway. Mr. Burnham suggested additional language for Condition No. 2, that the in -lieu spaces be pur- chased on an` annual basis at the then current fees charged by the City of Newport Beach. He stated that this may resolve the concern of the fees not becoming grandfathered. Motion Motion was made: -to approve Use Permit No. 1966 with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" with the addition to Condition No. 2 that the in -lieu spaces be purchased on an annual basis at the then current fees charged by the City of Newport Beach. Vice - Chairman McLaughlin stated that the Hungry Tiger Restaurant at this location would.be appro- priate because in the past, restaurant uses at this location have had trouble staying in operati and this restaurant has already established a goc reputation. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would be in • favor: of granting the 8 in -lieu parking spaces -22- WISSUNERS December 4, 1980 IA Gty of Newport Beach INDEX with the condition that the fees be chargeable at the then rate for each year. He also stated that he does not object to the proposed outdoor dining. Commissioner Thomas stated that the parking pro - blem.should not be pushed off on the Municipal lot. 'He stated that this should be sent back to determine if an off-site-parking agreement can be obtained or an alternate solution. Commi.ssioner Balalis stated that possibly the 8 in -lieu spaces should be reviewed one year from now, which would allow the 'applicant the oppor- tuni.ty to- proceed with the remodelling. Amendment X vice- Chairman McLaughlin stated that she would add the suggestion by Commissioner Balalis that the 8 in -lieu spaces be reviewed in one year, to her motion as Condition No. 7. • Commissi-oner Allen stated that- previous restauran at this location have not been successful. She stated that she would not ,want to make this rest- aurant successful at the expense of the existing adjacent businesses. Commissioner Beek stated that he would not suppor the.motion, but that an acceptable alternative would be for the.applicant to close off an in- door portion of the dining area to compensate for the addition of the outdoor dining area. He stated that the area should not be expanded until the parking problem can be resolved. Mr. Mathewson.stated that economics would not allow for a portion of the dining area to be closed off. He stated that the restaurant will be a low density restaurant in relation to the parking requirements. He stated that they are p.rop.os,ing a very small bar for sit -down cock - tails before dinner. Ayes X z Amended motion was. now voted on, which MOTION Noes X X X FAILED with a tie vote. Absent • -23- 4MISSIOIERS December 4, 1980 MINUTES w I City of Newport Beach INDEX Request to establish a microwave receiving an- II Item #8 tenna facility for the Community Cablevision Company on a temporary basis in the P -C District. USE PERI LOCATION: A portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1560 APPROVED Avocado Avenue on the easterly side CONDI- TIONALLY Avocado Avenue between San Joaquin TIONALLY Hills Road and San Nicolas Drive ad- jacent to Newport Center. ZONE: P -C APPLLCANT: The Irvine Company,'Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. • Mr. Dmohowski stated that they concur with the staff report findings and conditions for approval He stated' that the project is for a temporary location for a °Cablevision microwave receiving station. He stated that the request is for two years and that a permanent location will be found in the interim. He also stated that the Presiden of Cablevision and the Chief Engineer of the pro- ject are present at this evening's meeting to answer any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Balalis asked how this facility will be screened. Mr. Dmohowski stated that this will be screened with a solid wood fence; as the staff has recommended to meet City standards. Commissioner Cokas asked if any screening land- scaping is being proposed. Mr. Dmohowski stated that at th:e present time, there.,is no water:ser- vice to the site to provide for landscape main - tenan.ce. Commissioner Cokas asked if it would be.po'ssible to locate instant trees around the structure. Mr. Dmohowski stated that the enginee has indicated that landscaping could be made available. However, he stated that the use is only being requested for two years, and this does • not allow much time for the landscaping to become -24- uvt�»i�rvtrt� December 4, 1980 x N ICE, I City of Newport. Beach INDEX established. Commissioner Cokas stated that the structure itself, without the landscaping, would not be aesthetically fitting with the area. Com missi.oner Bal.alis stated that perhaps large, mat vegetation ean.be relocated around this structur Commissioner Cokas stated that this is what he meant by "instant" trees Mr.-Dmohowski stated that they would be willing to comply with this. Commissioner Allen asked if it .would be possible for the wall to be 16 feet 5 inches high to screen the station. Mr. Dmohowski stated that a normal wooden fence could not be extended to such a height, but that such a height would re- quire an engineered type of screen. He suggested that an alternative would be to recess the struc- ture to a certain extent below grade. He stated that possibly the pad could be excavated to a depth of 24 inches and still have the facility function adeugately as. a receiving station. Commissioner -Cokas asked if it would be possible for the receiving station to not be visable from the streets. Mr. Dmohowski stated that it would be virtually impossible to screen the entire height of the station, considering the temporary nature of the location and that investment that would have to be made in constructing a 16 foot high wall. He stated that the landscaping, com- bi.ned with recessing the structure below grade would.be the most feasible, given the temporary nature of the project. Commissioner Beek stated that he did not feel that the parabolic dish would destroy the aesthe- tics of the area. Commissioner Allen stated that the primary concern is screening this project from Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Motion X Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1967 with the findings and conditions of ,Exhibit "A ", with the added conditions that it be.recessed two feet and that the fence material be. opaque. Commissioner C-okas stated that possibly the Commi'ssio.n should not specify -how this is to be . scre.ened,'but to make the condition that the applicant screen the antenna from the roadways. -25 December 4, 1980 0 Beach INDEX Mr. Laycock asked the Commission for clarificatio on the roadways which are to be screened. Com- Amendment X missioner Allen stated that the roadways involved would :be San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boul.evard. Commissioner Balalis asked if the motion included Amendment X the condition for vegetation. Commissioner Allen stated that she would add this condition to her moti.on. Mr Laycock asked for-clarification on how tall. the.Vegetatfon- screening will have to.be Commissioner stated that the facility should be visibl; unobtrusive. Vice - Chairman McLaughlin stated that it should be done within reason. All Ayes r r IXIXrIXIAmend.ed motion for approval of Use Permit No. 196 Absent I * was now voted on as follows, which MOTION CARRIED FINDINGS: . 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3: The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. That the proposed,development is temporary i.n nature, and will not preclude the:pre- paration of a development plan for the ul- timate use of the property. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1967 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of person residing and working in the - neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the gener welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: • I I I I I 1. That construction shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans, except I as noted below. -26- x m fir December 4, 1980 z Beach INDEX 2. That the temporary microwave receiving an tenna facility shall be enclosed by a 6 foot high solid wooden fence or masonry wall with .?solid wooden gates. 3. That this use permit shall be granted for a period of two.(2) years and that any extension shall be subject to the approval of the Modifications Committee. That the microwave antenna facility be a minimum of 115 feet from the easterly edge of pavement of Avocado Avenue. I. 5. That a" driveway crossing be designed over the existing P.C.C. drainage ditch to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 6. That the structure be recessed at least two • below grade. 7. That landscape screening be located so as to make the structure visibly unobtrusive from San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. • Request to amend a portion of Districting Map Item #9 No. 24 and reclassify from C -1 -H and R -1 to the 0 -S, Open Space District, certain property AMENDMENT located on the southwesterly side of Bayside NO. 555 Drive, more - commonly known as the Balboa Yacht Club; and Document. the acceptance of an En- vironmental APPROVED LOCATION: A porti.on of Block 94 of Irvine's Subdivision and a portion of lots A and B, Tract No. 6927, located at 1801 Bayside Drive on the south- westerly side of Bayside Drive, more commonly known as the Balboa Yacht Club. -27- 0 Motion • December 4, 1980 City of mmmxh_ ZONE: APPLICANT: OWNERS: Beach C -1 -H and R -1 Balboa Yacht Club, Corona del Mar The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Same as applicant. The public.hearing opened in connection with thi item and Mr. Terry Welsh,.represen.ting the Balbo Yacht Club, appeared before. the Commission. Mr. Welsh stated that they concur with the recommen- dation for approval-in the staff report. He sta that this zoning request would bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Welsh if this re- quest was being made so that the taxes would be reduced, because the open space zone has a lower tax rate than the commercial zone. Mr. Welsh stated that this was partially correct and that no changes in the land use are planned at this time. Mr. Burnham stated that proved, a finding should vironmental document has reviewed -in conjunction if this amendment is ap- be added that the en- been considered and with this request. Motion was made for approval of Amendment No. 55 with the finding that the environmental document has been considered and reviewed for this reques Commissioner Thomas stated that he is concerned with the open space zone and the tax base situ- ation. He stated that he can foresee open space requests for other yacht clubs, public facilities; and so on. He stated that this may be convenien for the applicant, but that this is not the pur- pose of the open space zone. Commissioner Cokas asked if there would be any other way of subsidizing water side uses. Com- missioner Thomas stated that another zone may accomplish this same thing and be more appropria For instance, he stated that the YMCA may be in an institutional zone, where the taxes are lower because they are a non - profit organization. -28- INDEX COMMISSIONERS1 December 4, 1980 �a a City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Balalis stated that there is a zone within the Local Coastal Program for restricted marine uses. Mr. Welsh referred the Commission to the open space section in the Municipal Code, Chapter 20.52.50, Section C, which sites that yacht clubs are a permitted use. Ayes K X X X Motion by Commissioner Cokas was now voted on, Noes X which MOTION CARRIED. Absent Commissioner Beek stated that the point raised by Commissioner Thomas is well taken. He stated that perhaps a different or more appropriate zone for yacht clubs should be sought. • * * * Request to amend the Planned Community Develop- ment,Plan for Harbor View Hills so as to delete reference to the ".two (2) story" limit for residential construction and to change the height limit of thirty -five (35) feet to thirty - two (32) feet and the acceptance of an Environ- mental Document. Item #10 AMENDMENT N0.-.556 APPROVED LOCATION: Harbor View Hills.Planned Community bounded by Ford Road on the north, the City boundary on the east, San Joaquin Hills Road on the south and MacArthur Boulevard on the west. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened in connection.with this item and Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr: D.mohowski stated that they are requesting this amendment because several custom lot projects in Harbor Ridge have been found to be i "n violation.of the existing two- story • limit, even though they are in compliance -29- WISSIONERS December 4, 1980 gn Citv of Newport Beach with the basic 32 foot height standard. He stat that the amendment would be consistent with the intent of the Planned Community Regulations and would also be in character with existing pattern of development within the area: Commissioner Beek asked if there is a community association for this area. Mr. Dmohowski stated that he was-no"t familar with an association in operation, as yet. Mr. Laycock stated that ther is not a community association at this location, as yet. Commissioner • Allen asked why the entire Planned Community was included in this request. Mr. Laycock stated that the height limit would re- strict development in this area", and that this request would provide more architectural flexi- bility. He stated that this request is consisten with many-other areas in town, including West Newport, Corona del Mar and the Peninsula. • Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Dmohowski why the 32 foot height limit is being considered", rather tha a lower height. Mr. Dmohowski stated that in certain-instances, the lot owners have opted to excavate below grade to include a third level below grade in order to obtain the desired amount of square footage within the structure. He also stated that due to the topography of some of the lots, violations will occur because of the City's definition of a story within the Planned Community. Mr. Dmohowski also stated that many of the lots are sloping hillside lots and the requested height limit is required to fit the building envelope on the site. Motion JJXJ Motion wa.s made to adopt Resolution No. 1059, ap- All Ayes X X X X X proving Amendment No. 556 and acceptance of the Absent * Negative Dec- laration to be forwarded to the City Council, which MOTION'CARRIED. Initiate proposed amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space, and.Circulation Elements of the Newport Beach • General Plan. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach -30- INDEX Item #11 GENERAL M�ENDMENT NNE COMMISSIONERS December 4, 1980 FhD I City of Newport Beach INDEX Staff. recommended that this General Plan Amendment be continued to the meeting of December 18, 1980. Motion X Motion was made to continue General.Plan Amendme All Ayes X X X YX.X 81 -1 to December 18, 1980, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent ADDITI "ONAL BUSINESS lan i vi:n Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer," discussed with the Commission, the Public Works Department memo dated December 4, 1980, regarding the traff phasing plan improvement for the Newport- Irvine Associates Building at 3300 Irvine Avenue. He stated that the Public- Works Department is re- commending that the Newport -Ir -vine Associates be • allowed to contribute $3,600 to the Transportati and Circulation Fund in lieu of completing im- provements'at this time to the Campus Drive -Mac- Arthur Boulevard intersection that are required under the traffic phasing ordinance. He stated that a motion of this nature would approve the waiving of the condition that the applicant can not occupy"the building until the improvement is completed. Mr. Burnham stated that the motion should reflec that the applicant will deposit monies with the Department of Public Works in a sum equal to tha which would, be required to make the improvements Commissioner Balal.is stated that a'date should b set-to review this item with the Public Works Department. He suggested that the first meeting in March of 1981 would be appropriate. Commissioner Cokas asked how the fund is to be handled. Mr. Webb stated that the sum of $3,600 was recommended by the Public Works Department and that the developer has already submitted a check in this amount of money. 31- WISSIONERS December 4, 1980. 5. City of Newport Beach INDEX Motion X Motion was made to allow Newport - Irvine Associat All Ayes X X X XX X to contribute $3,600 to the Transportation and Absent * Circulation Fund in lieu of completing improve- ments at this time to the Campus Drive- MacArthur Boulevard intersection that are'required under the traffic phasing ordinance and that the Publi Works Department make a report back to the Planning Commission at the first.meeting in Marc of 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * Set for Public Hearing Amendments to Chapter 20 Motion Y Motion was: made that a public hearing be set for All Ayes YX X X January 8,, 1981, on the suggested Amendments to Absent _ * Chapter 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to the powers and duties of the Modification's Committee; nonconforming structur and uses; and residential parking standards, whi • MOTION CARRIED. * * * Time c.hange.for- study sessions Vice - Chairman McLaughlin stated that there has been discussion by the Commission,on changing the commencement of the study sessions, which no begin at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Cokas stated th 4:30 p.m. would be an appropriate time to commen the'.study sessions, when the determination has been made that a study session is warranted. Motion Motion was •made to change the Rules of Procedure All Ayes X X XX X Section VI, Time of Meetings, Item B, so that in Absent * addition to regular meetings; the,Plannin,g Com- mission shall convene for the purpose of hearing reports.from the staff and reviewing, discussing and debating planning and zoning matters of in- terest to the City at the hour of 4:30 p.m. on the Thursdays preceding the second and fourth Mondays of each month when the Planning Commissi Chairman makes the determination that said study session is warranted. No official action.will b taken at a study .session. MOTION CARRIED. -32- "" " "'" "I_^' December 4, 1980 5 F WX U L" City of Newport Beach 1 Coastal Program Commissioner Thomas stated that a letter should b forwarded to the City Council expressing the fact that the entire Local Coastal Program Plan.was a compromise-on-many controversial issues,, and that the plan should not be significantly altered. He stated that these feelings should -be communicated to the -City Council. Commissioner Cokas stated that the plan is a very interrelated plan and that a lot of time was spen by the Commission to make it a total plan. Commissioner Balalis suggested that perhaps Com- missi -oner Cokas could convey the Commission's feelings on this subject-to the City Council. Motion Motion was made for Commissioner Cokas to speak All Ayes XX X X X with the Mayor of the City of Newport Beach on A,ent * behalf of the Commission with regards to the Commission's intent and compromises that were made in the recommendations of the Local Coastal Program, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * 0 There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:30 p.m. George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -33- INDEX