HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/1988 - Adjourned Regular MeetingCOUNCIL MEMBERS
ti n
� G
Present
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
MINUTES
ADJOURNED /REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
PLACE: Council Chambers
TIME: 6:00 P.M.
DATE: October 24, 1988
Mayor Cox presented the following
Proclamations regarding:
White Cane: Safety Day
World Food Day /Orange County Hunger Week
United Nations Day
Mayor Cox indicated that the presentation by
the members of the "Just Say No" Club of
Newport Elementary School would take place a
little later on in the agenda, as some of the
students had not yet arrived.
A. ROLL CALL.
B. Reading of Minutes of Meeting of October
10, 1988, was waived, approved as
written, and ordered filed.
C. Reading in. full of all ordinances and
resolutions under consideration, was
waived, and City Clerk was directed to
read by titles only.
D. HEARINGS:
1. Mayor Cox opened the continued public U/P 32291AI
hearing and City Council review of an Leland
APPEAL BY LEI.AND H. WEST, Newport Beach, West
from the unanimous denial by the (88)
Planning Commission on September 8, 1988
of
A. TRAFFIC STUDY NO
Request to accept a revised traffic
study so as to permit the establishment
of a restaurant in conjunction
with the approved auto dealership
located on property within the "Retail
Service Commercial" area of the
Mariners' Mile Specific Plan which
includes a request to override the
requirements of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance; and the acceptance of an
Environmental Document;
0
B. USE PERMIT NO. 3229 (AMENDED)
Request to amend a previously approved
use permit which permitted the
construction of an automobile dealership
which exceeded.the 26 foot basic height
limit in the 26/35 Height Limitation
District, on property located at 3000
West Coast Highway, in Mariners' Mile.
The proposed amendment includes a
request to permit the establishment of a
Volume 42 - Page 420
Trf Stdy#49
0
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
\tt 9G��ZO Octobe r 24, 1988
restaurant facility with on -sale beer
and wine in a portion of the auto
dealership.
MINUTES
Recycled report from Planning
Department, dated October 10, 1988, with
appeal application from Leland West, was
presented.
Copy of letter to Planning Commission
Chairman from Gail Demmer, President of
Newport Heights Community Association,
requesting denial of subject use permit,
was presented.
Assistant City Clerk advised that after
the agenda was printed, a letter from
Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot was received
requesting, denial of Newport Imports to
establish a Ruby's Restaurant in their
building, based on the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
Ken Delino, Executive Assistant to the
City Manager, summarized the project as
a request to amend a use permit to
enable a previously approved employees
cafeteria area to be converted to a
full- gervi.ce restaurant with beer and
wine takeout service. He further stated
that in the denial, the Planning
Commission noted there was adequate
parking, but the project did not meet
the requirements of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance. In addition, he stated, the
applicant has offered to close the
restaurant: during the peak hours, but
the opinion of staff is that this would
be difficult to enforce.
Bob Burnham, City Attorney, stated that
copies of his memorandum regarding the
subject use permit and related traffic
study, have been given to the applicant,
the staff (to be included in the
record), and to the City Council, which
attempts to answer some questions as to
whether the applicant can, under the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), close
the restaurant and therefore, comply
with the TPO, and Findings for Denial of
Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended). He
stated he indicated in his memorandum,
that since the TPO uses the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
definition of "project," and CEQA allows
a project to modify its proposal, the
Council can consider this project
satisfying the TPO, with the imposition
Volume 42 - 421
U/P 3229(A)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
0
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
of conditions that require the
restaurant to close during the peak hour
periods. Further, the City Attorney
stated that it is his opinion this type
of condition will be difficult to
enforce, as it may not be consistent
with the spirit of the TPO. He added
that attached to his memorandum are two
exhibits; the Findings for Approval of
Traffic Study No. 49 (there were no
Findings for Approval with the report
that went to the Planning Commission);
and Findings for Denial of Use Permit
No. 3229 [Amended] (in the attachment to
the Planning Commission, there were no
Finding for Denial of the use permit).
In summary, he stated that the Council
has three options as they relate to the
TPO: 1) find that no traffic study is
required because the project has been
modified; 2) override the TPO; 3) or
deny the traffic study on the basis that
the conditions the applicant is offering
to abide by are difficult, or impossible
to enforce. He stated that Council
also has the option of approving, or
denying the use permit, and findings for
denial are with the material that was
submitted to the Council, which is an
action that Council can take independent
of the decision on the traffic study and
the TPO. He stated that the findings for
denial of the use permit are predicated
on two things: 1) the proposed project
requires valet parking for restaurant
customers and there is the potential for
traffic congestion occurring in the west
bound lanes of Pacific Coast Highway in
the event valets cannot adequately
accommodate the demand for their
services; and 2) the intersection at
Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway
experiences heavy congestion during the
11:30 a.m.. to 1:00 p.m. periods, and the
incremental increase in congestion
resulting from the restaurant use will
adversely affect service at that
intersection.
The Planning Director stated that he
felt the Council was due an explanation
from the staff as follows: When this
project was presented to the Planning
Commission, it was specifically
designated as an employee cafeteria.
Shortly after the applicant started
construction of the project, it came to
the attention of staff that it was the
applicant's intent to put a Ruby's
Restaurant in this location. Staff
Volume 42 - Page 422
U/P 3229(A)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
October 24, 1988
MINUTES
Volume: 42 - Page 423
U/P 3229(A)
contacted the applicant and informed him
that at the time this project had been
originally approved by the City, there
was no restaurant approved as a part of
•
the application, but the proposed space
was strictly for the use of the
employees. The applicant then applied
for an amendment to the use permit.. In
the meantime, as construction
progressed, it was noted by the Building
Department that the type of equipment
being installed, in terms of sinks,
vents, refrigeration, cooking, etc., was
the same that would be used for a
commercial restaurant. When the City
brought this to the applicant's
attention, and suggested that something
on a smaller scale would be more
appropriate for an employees cafeteria,
it was very strongly indicated to staff,
that regardless of whether the space was
to be used as a commercial restaurant,
or an employees cafeteria, the identical
equipment, floor plan, and facility was
going to go into that space, and for
that reason no "red tags," to the best
of the Planning Director's knowledge,
were issued while allowing them to
proceed with that space.
•
Doug Cavanaugh, owner of Ruby's Diner,
Inc., representing the applicant, Mr.
West, presented a graph which describes
the different business hours of
operation and how the traffic flow comes
into the proposed restaurant. He stated
that Ruby's Diner, Inc., currently owns
and operates six restaurants in the
greater Orange County area, three of
which are in Newport Beach. He
continued that shortly after the first
use permit was issued to Newport
Imports, he participated in the design
of the facility, and added that the
structure will be a limited partnership
and Ruby's Diner, Inc. being the general
partner with 50% equity. He stated that
he fully recognizes the traffic problems
on Pacific Coast Highway and Riverside
Drive, and does not want to add to those
problems. He is-confident that there
are ways to condition and mitigate the
impact this project might have, and
stated that: there are several positive
features that the facility will have on
.
the traffic: in the area, one of which is
to provide a medium priced restaurant
for the
Volume: 42 - Page 423
U/P 3229(A)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
0
C
/ 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
business and residential community
surrounding the dealership. There are
currently 110 employees working in
Newport Imports now, and he felt that
those people would be more inclined to
stay on -site with a full - service
restaurant. He presented a petition
signed by 125 local residents indicating
their support for the project. He
added that he would like to propose the
following conditions of operation to
mitigate the traffic impacts, and that
would be to not open the facility to the
public until 8:30 a.m., and close the
facility between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m., to
miss the afternoon rush. He stated that
these suggested hours of operation were
derived by their traffic engineer, Bill
Darnell, and asked him to address the
Council on this issue.
Bill Darnell, Basmaciyan, Darnell, Inc.,
3190 Airport Loop Drive, Costa Mesa,
addressed the Council, stating that his
firm was asked to evaluate the project
and advise the applicant and Mr.
Cavanaugh on what kind of mitigation
measures could be developed that would
satisfy the TPO. He stated that they
went over the peak hour counts that the
City generates for the TPO, and all the
cumulative projects, and developed ICU's
on 15 minute increments, going from 7:00
a.m., to 9:15 a.m., and from 3:30 p.m.
to 6:00 p.m., using the background and
existing traffic. They found that up to
8:00 -9:00 a.m. the ICU remains over .90;
and from 8:15 -9:15 a.m., it starts
diminishing drastically and comes down
to an ICU of .90 which would satisfy the
TPO. In the afternoons at 3:30 -4:30
p.m, the ICU's were acceptable at .90;
and at 3:45 -4:45 p.m. acceptable at .90.
He added that at 4:00 p.m. the ICU
starts to break down and exceeds the .90
requirement of the TPO.
Mr. Cavanaugh addressed the Council
again, giving the following information
with regard to enforceability of the
restaurant hours of operation:
Primarily, proper signage on the
facility would educate the public as to
the time the restaurant was in
operation, and after some time, there
should be no problem. The results from
a graph of his designer restaurants
Volume 42 - Page 424
/P 3229(A)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
J, A
ti �
G
•
. •
E
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 19813
shows that the lowest demand time hours
are from 7:30 -8:30 a.m., and from
4:30 -5:30 p.m., and therefore, usage of
the facility at these times would not
present a significant traffic problem.
The valet parking system would be of
benefit because the valets could be
educated to inform the public as to the
hours of operation for the restaurant.
They would like to have a trial period
to see if they could be successful, and
if so, they would like to try it for a
longer period, but that if the results
were negative, they would accept the
consequences.
Gail Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive,
representing the Newport Heights
Community .Association, addressed the
Council, stating that there are many
citizens in Newport Heights that have
something to say about the proposed use
permit tonight, and asked for permission
to speak on their behalf, with the
following testimony: Recently at a
public forum Ms. Demmer attended, she
picked up a Newport Harbor Chamber of
Commerce magazine, and referred to an
article written by the Government
Affairs Division in regard to the TPO,
which states, "the City currently has a
Traffic Phasing Ordinance adopted in
1978, which evaluates the traffic impact
by new development, and requires traffic
improvements to be in place prior to the
occupancy of the new development .... the
existing TPO is one of the most
stringent ordinances of its type in the
State of California, and this TPO has
been effective in regulating local
development and in providing needed road
improvements at no cost to the
taxpayers... we don't need any other
initiatives, or ordinances when we have
this very fine TPO in the City.... the
way to regulate and deal with
complicated and costly traffic solutions
is through the existing TPO." Ms.
Demmer added that it is very interesting
to note that the President of the
Government; Affairs Division has never
been a member of the Newport Heights
Community Association, and the
Association cannot agree more
thoroughly with what the business
community has to say about the TPO.
Therefore„ the Newport Heights Community
Association asks that the Council
support the findings for denial of
Volume 42 - Page 425
3229(A)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
J, -o
G
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
Traffic Study No. 49, and Use Permit No. U/P 3229(A)
3229 (Amended), as the project does not
meet the TPO requirements, and the
traffic generated onto Riverside Avenue
and Pacific Coast Highway will increase
the already intense traffic situation
that presently exists. She also stated
that, in the traffic study findings
presented to the Council at the March
23, 1987 meeting, the staff report, on
page 44, Item No. 2, states that the
traffic study indicates the
project- generated traffic with neither
cause, nor make worse an unsatisfactory
level of traffic on any major, primary
modified, or primary street. She stated
that they believe the traffic generated
onto Riverside Avenue and Avon Street
will most certainly be affected at an
unsatisfactory level, and on Page 46,
Item No. 3, it states the site shall be
designed and laid out to allow vehicle
delivery trucks to drive from West Coast
Highway through to Avon Street. At the
time of the issuance of the original use
permit, the association believed that
the improvements on Avon were just for
that intended purpose, including their
employee traffic, but today we are
realizing a very major and very popular
well -known restaurant will exit all its
traffic from Avon Street. This is in
violation of what the association
perceives the intended usage of this
street, and. are of the opinion that this
kind of traffic generation will require
a double le.fthand lane turn from
Riverside south onto Pacific Coast
Highway, and an intersection that is
already in need of a double lefthand
turn possibility from Pacific Coast
Highway going north onto Riverside
Avenue. They also believe that the
protection and safety of speeding
bicycles, primarily from Ensign Junior
High School. and Harbor High School will
necessitate a light at Avon Street and
Riverside Avenue, and they request
Council's support of staff's findings
and conclusions, recommended to the
Planning Commission and supported by the
Commission, that trip reduction methods
do not appear reasonable for the
proposed project. It is the opinion of
their Community Association that
restrictions in the hours of operation
in peak traffic hours would be
impossible to regulate and enforce.
They are aware that they have many fine
restaurants on Mariners Mile, and who
are not se'ling automobiles. They are
Volume 42 - Page 426
COUNCIL MEMBERS
� of 9G
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
also concerned that this entrepreneur
has already built a restaurant, and it
was built for public usage, it is in
fact, completely installed, decorated
and electrically wired to meet State
compliance for public restaurant
operation, and far exceeds, at this
particular point, employee lunch room
requirements. This, including a retail
clothing store, has been built without
permit in the Newport Imports structure.
What exists here, is a restaurant,
completely built without permit, and
with'no wavy to control the usage,
traffic, or the patronage.
Chan Lefebvre, 2112 E. Balboa Boulevard,
member of the Board of Directors of the
Balboa Peninsula Point Association,
addressed the Council, stating that for
all of the reasons given by Ms. Demmer
previously, they too are opposed to the
proposed application, and urge the
Council's denial.
Marian Rayl, 426 San Bernardino, Newport
Heights, addressed the Council, stating
that the residents were not aware that
the neighborhood was being canvassed for
signatures regarding the traffic in the
area of the post office off of Riverside
Avenue. She added that the traffic
going in and out all day at the post
office is affecting the small businesses
in that area. She also stated that she
is mainly concerned what will happen to
the traffic situation if the restaurant,
which started out to be an employees
cafeteria, goes in, not to mention the
clothing store, and emphasized that the
public, along with the City, has been
deceived.
The Planning Director addressed the
Council regarding the "boutique"
clothing store, stating that the
original plans that were approved did
include a retail - clothing store on the
premises, and the applicant, had a
similar type of operation in another
location with an automobile dealership
and the sale of sportswear.
Mike Moosl.in, 621 Powell Place, Newport
Heights, addressed the Council, stating
that he has lived in the area for
Volume 42 - Page 427
3229(A)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
u
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
approximately 14 years. He added that he
has seen the City approve close to a
million feet of office space on Coast
Highway, and the people that work in
those offices get into their cars and
drive to a place to eat lunch. He
emphasized that the traffic is being
created by the additional office space
of the large businesses and banks, and
not by the proposed small diner. He
stated, that to have a restaurant across
the street has got to alleviate some of
that traffic, and to have an opportunity
where a small local businessman, who has
done an outstanding job for the City,
come in with a diner where the public
can spend $4 or $5, rather than $12,
$15, or $20, without going out of the
City and alleviate traffic, seems to him
a "win -win" situation. He added that
there are not enough inexpensive places
to eat in the area, and that Ruby's is a
local business who is trying to help our
City, vs. an out -of -state chain type of
operation, and we should support our
local businessman.
Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot, 2221 16th
Street, addressed the Council, stating
that he disputes the intentions that
Ruby's will reduce traffic, and
questions the results of the applicant's
traffic consultant's study. According
to his reading of the study, the TPO
would still be tripped from 4:00 -5:45
p.m., even with the restaurant being
closed. According to the applicant's
consultant's own study, from 4:00 -5:00
p.m., the TPO goes up from .88 to .93,
and anything over .90 trips the TPO.
Also, from 4:30 -5:30 p.m., the TPO goes
up from .91 to .95, and from 4:45 -5:45
p.m., the TPO goes up .91 to .95 again.
Therefore, in the two hours that they
are closed, the traffic which is
generated because cars come to and from
the restaurant even before it opens, we
have the TPO ordinance being tripped,
and for this reason he recommends that
the Council oppose the project.
Zachary Pedicini, 102 Scholz Plaza,
addressed the Council, stating that the
applicant, Lee West, has the most
largest and beautiful jaguar dealership
on the west coast, that he is a good
citizen and a credit to the community.
Bill Darnell, Basmaciyan, Darnell, Inc.,
addressed the Council again, stating
that he wanted to clarify, that what is
Volume 42 - Page 428
/P 3229(A)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
\AL\ \t\ 4P� �9 GOctober 24, 198EI
1, 11
u
•
•
MINUTES
shown in .Table I of his report regarding
impacting the TPO requirements, and what
is shown in the table is full
implementation of the restaurant during
those hours, so that they could use the
figures as a tool to find out where the
traffic might be a problem.
The City Attorney directed a question to
Mr. Darnell, as to whether he had an
opinion if the TPO might be tripped
based upon Ruby's employees coming and
leaving work other than when the
restaurant is closed, to which Mr.
Darnell stated that the graph submitted
to Council does not reflect this, and he
did not believe this to be true based
upon statistics they have gathered from
other restaurant operations. Mr.
Darnell stated, the analysis they did
shows that what trips the TPO is the
traffic leaving the project site going
out to Avon and trying to come down to
Riverside, but the employees are only
into the project site, and they would
not be impacting traffic, but the
movement might exceed 1 %. He added that
morning eastbound direction traffic
using the "U- turn," and full use of the
restaurant would not trip the TPO even
with traffic from employees and in the
afternoon, with the 1% volume at 63 and
the total project at 48, the TPO would
not be tripped greater than 1% by the
employees.
Council Member Strauss asked Mr.
Cavanaugh when did the project take
shape, as it wasn't originally a
restaurant, and what made it come about.
Mr. Cavanaugh stated that he was
contacted well after the first use
permit was approved, and it was Mr.
West's intention that he wanted a
first -class facility, no matter what,
and in the event it would not be
approved, it could serve as a
first -class cafeteria. Council Member
Strauss inquired as to how many people
can the facility serve, either as a
cafeteria or as a restaurant, to which
Mr. Cavanaugh replied, seating for 94.
Mr. Cavanaugh added that for
clarification, if the facility opened at
8:30 a.m., the employees would arrive at
approximately 7:30 a.m., and the second
shift would be arriving sometime around
4:30 p.m.
Volume 42 - Page 429
/P 3229(A)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
eons
on
Ayes
I 1I
J
is
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
Hearing no one else wishing to address
the Council, the public hearing was
closed.
After Council discussion, motion was
made to sustain the decision of the
Planning Commission for denial; to
include the City Attorney's additional
findings for denial of Use Permit No.
3229 (Amended); and to add a Finding No.
7 to the Findings for Denial of Traffic
Study No. 49, and subject use permit, as
follows:
"City Attorney's Findings:
The proposed restaurant use will
be detrimental to the health,
peace, safety, morals and comfort
of persons residing and working in
the neighborhood and to the general
welfare of the City in that: 1) the
proposed project requires valet
parking for restaurant customers
and there is the potential for
traffic: congestion occurring in. the
west bound lanes of Pacific Coast
Highway in the event valets cannot
adequately accommodate the demand
for their services; and 2) the
intersection at Riverside and.
Pacific Coast Highway experiences
heavy congestion during the 11:30
a.m, to 1:00 p.m. periods, and the
incremental increase in congestion
resulting from the restaurant use
will adversely affect service at
that intersection."
"Findings for Denial of Traffic
Study No. 49 and Use Permit No.
32291;Amended):
1. That the proposed development
is not consistent with the
General Plan, and the adopted
Local Coastal Program, Land
Use Plan, inasmuch as the
proposed project requires an
exception to the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance.
2. 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.
Volume 42 - Page 430
/P 3229(A)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rnl 1 CAI 1 a
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
3. That the project generated U/P 3229(A)
traffic makes worse an
unsatisfactory level of
traffic service at the
intersection of Coast Highway
,and Riverside Avenue.
4. That the only available
traffic improvement which
would result in compliance
with the provisions of the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance is
clearly beyond the scope of
this project, and is not
anticipated to be constructed
within 48 months.
5. That the project does not
include any trip generation
reductions which will allow an
exception to the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance.
6. The approval of Use Permit No.
3229 (Amended) will, 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 and be
detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort
and general welfare of persons
residing and working in the
neighborhood and be
detrimental, or injurious to
property and improvements in
the neighborhood and the
general welfare of the City,
inasmuch as the proposed
project requires an exception
to the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
7. Conditions on the project,
such as closure between the
hours of 7:00 -9:30 a.m., and
3:30 -6:00 p.m., or other
hours, which may cause the
project to comply with the TPO
are difficult, if not
impossible to enforce."
At this time, Mayor Cox asked the Newport
Elementary School students to come forward
with their presentation of the "Just Say No"
Club to celebrate "Red Ribbon Week;" wherein
students offered remarks, and presented the
City Council with red ribbon pins.
Volume 42 - Page 431
COUNCIL MEMBERS
,r
u
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
2. Mayor Cox opened the continued public
hearing regarding:
A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87 -1(A & E) -
These amendments involve major revisions
to the Land Use and Circulation Elements
of the Newport Beach General Plan. The
proposed revisions to the Land Use
Element involve establishment of various
densities and intensities of development
citywide. The revisions to the
Circulation Element include
modifications to the City's adopted
Master Plan of Arterial Highways, as
well as a reevaluation of the necessary
roadway improvements and funding sources
available to the City of Newport Beach;
I0
B. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO.
13 -
Amendments to the Local Coastal Program
Land Use Plan to conform its provisions
with respect to permitted land uses to
the Land Use Element of the General
Plan;
C. MINOR REVISIONS TO THE RECREATION AND
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT AND HOUSING ELEMENT -
of the Newport Beach General Plan in
order to ensure consistency with the
Land Use Element.
Report from the Planning Department, was
presented.
Letter from Helen F. Kreutzkamp
regarding building and traffic, was
presented.
Letter and clipping from Shirley Knutsen
regarding residents worried over
devaluation and traffic control under
the City's new general plan, was
presented.,
Petition Circulated by Pat Parsons
opposed to any extension of San Joaquin
Hills Road beyond Pelican Hill Road, was
presented.
Letter from S. R. Willford regarding the
proposed new General Plan ratio
designation for Lido Village /Lido Shops,
was presented.
Volume 42 - Page 432
(45)
87 -1(A &
S'
Elmt
COUNCIL MEMBERS
9 Cp a
0
•
Motion
All Ayes
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
The Assistant City Clerk advised the
Council that the following letters
regarding the subject general plan
amendment, were received after the
agenda was printed:
Luvena. W. Hayton, Corona del Mar
Chamber of Commerce; Joseph Massa;
Michael D. Franklin; Roger G.
McKinnon; Delores Gallo Place; Lee
K. Gerber; St. James Episcopal
Church Reverend David C. Anderson;
D. W. Diem; Dillon R. Cox; Thomas
L. Testa; Helmut Reiss; Pete J.
Duca; Richard K. Natland; Dr. Jan
D. Vandersloot (4 letters); Mr. and
Mrs. Lawrence F. Kerr; William C.
Hardesty; William E. Blurock; Helen
F. Kre:utzkamp; Marco Baljeu and
David Cox.
At the request of Council, the Advanced
Planning Manager, Bob Lenard, explained
that the staff report discusses the
issues that: were raised at the meeting
of October 10, and also, staff has
provided some additional documents; one
with revisions and modifications to the
straw - voting guide, and some language
and clarification regarding the Newport
Village site.
LAND USE ELEMENT;
Non - Conforming Uses
The City Attorney commented that the
language in the straw vote guide is an
effort to do two things: 1) Ensure that
there are rro penalties that apply to a
person whose property might be made
non - conforming solely by virtue of the
.S floor area ratio that the Council may
well impose on commercial property; and
2) require the City to review provisions
of the Zoning Code to make it a little
easier for people to rebuild
non - conforming structures that are
destroyed by fire, earthquake, or other
calamity. Presently, those procedures
require use permit process.
Following consideration, motion was made
to support the Language regarding the
Non - Conforming Structures and Uses
section of the draft Land Use Element
(page 17), as follows:
"The non - conforming provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance shall be
reviewed to ensure fair and
Volume 42 - Page 433
87 -1(A &
COUNCIL
1
Mien
•
\ot
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
equitable treatment of properties GP
and structures made non- conforming E)
by the October 24, 1988 amendments
to floor area limits for commercial
properties and minimum lot size
standards for residential
properties. The provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance relative to the
right to rebuild structures damaged by
fire, earthquake or other disaster
shall be reevaluated to ensure fair
and equitable standards allowing
reconstruction of non - conforming
buildings."
RESIDENTIAL ISSUES:
Avon Street Access
Bob Lenard, commented that staff has
provided the City Council with two
alternatives on the revised checklist;
one which would be to allow access from
Avon Street only in instances where that
was the only access available; and the
other option would be to delete any
reference to Avon Street access from the
General Plan.
Discussion ensued, wherein Council
Member Hart made a motion to "revise the
previous straw vote to delete any
reference in the General Plan to access
from Avon Street."
The Planning Director commented that the
foregoing motion would allow a property
owner to take access to Avon, even
though they had access from Cliff Drive.
The City Attorney explained that there
is no subdivision permitted on the lots
most westerly of the park, so the access
could only be taken in conjunction with
the construction of a single- family
dwelling; or a new garage.
Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot, 2221 16th
Street, addressed the Council, stating
he was concerned that such an access
would impart the wetland stream at the
bottom of the cliff. He also stated that
the residents there are already facing
traffic and parking problems, especially
if there is another access on Avon
Street.
Volume 42 - Page 434
87 -1(A&
COUNCIL MEMBERS
G\1\� -A 1
•
Motion
All Ayes
•
1
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
Zachary Pedicini, 102 Sholtz Plaza, a
real estate broker representing the
possible new owners of the property at
2953 Cliff Drive, addressed the Council,
stating that the Baljeu's intent is to
close the two existing garages and use
it as a projection room, then build two
garages dawn below on Avon Street. He
added that there would be no parking on
Avon, and the drain ditch and creek
referred to by Dr. Vandersloot does not
touch the subject property, as it has
161 feet on Avon.
Council Member Hart added that her
motion did. not have anything to do with
the subject property, but just concerned
Avon Street in general.
Council Member Turner made a substitute
motion to support "revise the previous
straw vote: to prohibit residential
access from Avon Street, except where no
access from either Cliff Drive or Santa
Ana Avenue: is available," which motion
carried.
COMMERCIAL. ISSUES:
Commercial'_ and Mixed Use Floor Area
Limits /Parking Structures
Bob Lenard, explained that there has
been a lot of testimony from the
commercial property owners regarding
inclusion of covered above -grade parking
in the allowable floor area ratio (FAR)
for the various commercial districts.
He added that this particular provision
unfairly penalized some of the owners of
smaller lots, because it is harder to
design efficient parking layouts. He
stated that alternative "B," on the
checklist would allow up to .25 FAR not
be counted in the allowable FAR. He
stated that for example, in an area
where you are building a straight
commercial .5 retail type of use, you
would be able to have .25 of the area
with covered parking without detracting
from the ability to build that
commercial use.
Mr. Lenard stated that since the last
meeting, discussion among the commercial
property owners in areas where mixed -use
residential is allowed under the
Volume 42 - Page 435
CPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
\11*\0��
0
L
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 19813
proposed plan, concern was expressed
that the standard that came from the
Planning Commission does not allow a
large enough residential unit,
particularly on some of the smaller
subdivided lots in the Cannery Village
area. He added it was suggested an
alternative of a .35 allowance per
covered parking was given for those
mixed use projects, which does not
affect the amount of commercial
development: that can be constructed on
the site, tout just allows for a slightly
larger unit:, and is consistent with the
intent of the Planning Commission. He
commented that under this standard, a
typical Cannery Village lot would mean
the difference between building an 1,850
sq ft. unit: or 2,050 sq. ft. unit;
and that the Planning Commission wanted
to provide: an adequate building
envelope to accommodate a good owner
type unit on the property.
Council Member Maurer asked if this
would include Agate Street, Balboa
Island, and. the Planning Director also
inquired as, to whether Old Newport was
included, and was told by Mr. Lenard
that it would, and includes only the
easterly side of Old Newport.
Mr. Lenard, in answer to Mayor Pro Tem
Hart's inquiry, stated that all
commercial parcels would have a .25
allowance for parking, and all mixed -use
commercial residential developments
would have a .35 FAR allowance for
covered parking.
Council Member Sansone asked does this
mean that the base FAR is now going to
be .75, to which Mr. Lenard stated "no,"
the base FAR would be .5 for the use,
such as .5 for commercial use, plus up
to 25% of the land area in covered
parking. Be added that in terms of the
building envelope, (including covered
parking) it could be .75.
Mr. Lenard offered that for the types of
uses that would be allowed to go to the
higher FAR, if you had a low- traffic
generating use, it could get up to .75
FAR, then you could add to that the .25
covered parking, and the building
envelope could be as high as 1.0 for an
exclusive commercial use.
Volume 42 - Page 436
87 -1(AS
COUNCIL MEMI
s
��'�
.1 \1
is
Motion
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
X
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
The City ,Attorney commented that for a
high - traffic generating use, then the
FAR would not even.get up to the .5;
therefore it reverses, and can go bigger
for a low- traffic generating use, but
for a high- traffic generating use, it
may be as low .2 FAR.
In answer to further questions from the
Council, :Mr. Lenard confirmed the fact
that the intent of the FAR allowance for
a combination of the mixed use
(commercial and residential) and covered
parking was to encourage the use of
garages under cover.
Motion was made by Council Member
Maurer to approve A -II.
Dick Nichols, 519 Iris, addressed the
Council, stating that he needs
some clarification regarding underground
parking, because that would mean you
would have .75 buildable, .25 per
above - ground parking, and the project
can go 1.0 underground, which would mean
that there could be a very dense project
on the lot, much higher than what the
residents fought against regarding the
Ernie George's village property in
Corona del Mar. He also stated that
this would be a tremendous growth over
the .5, and suggested that if there is
to be any growth on the .75, you cannot
have above ground parking, etc.
Mr. Lenard replied that it would be
substantially less than the project
cited; about .75 as the total building
envelope, compared to 1.25 for the
project which is actually on the ground.
Dee Dee Masters, 140 Fernleaf, addressed
the Council, stating that she has
property at 2711 East Coast Highway,
with a 2--story building on the corner of
Fernleaf that has an underground garage,
and also outside parking which is not
covered. She stated that she is totally
confused with the City's formula as to
what she would be allowed. She added
that the building is 25 years old and
they would like to upgrade some of the
building..
Volume 42 - Page 437
87 -1(A&
COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
October 24, 1988
MINUTES
Bob Lenard attempted to address Ms.
Masters' concern, and presented an
example stating that if the lot were
• 3,000 sq. ft., under the proposed
regulations you can build a 1,500 sq.
ft. retail. type of use (.5), and in
addition to that, you could cover up to
25 %, or 7`;0 sq. ft. of the parking area
without it: counting towards that FAR.
But in her situation, the underground
parking would not be counted in
calculation of the FAR, only the above
grade covered parking, and then only the
above grade parking that exceeded 750
sq. feet.
Leonard Seltzer, 519 Hazel Street,
representing Neighbors to Preserve
Corona del. Mar, addressed the Council,
suggesting; that because of the community
concern, this issue be continued so that
they can get together with the City
Planning Department to give some input
as to whether or not this particular
piece of property should be .42
commercial. to serve the needs of this
particular community.
• Mayor Cox stated that tonight's straw
vote is addressing the General Plan. He
also added that Council and staff have
had conversations with both the property
owner, and residents of the community
about the need to have some dialogue
for that specific property, and that
item will come back for in depth
discussion at a later time.
Tom Trischler, 1745 W. Katella, Suite E,
Orange, addressed the Council on an
issue about a property that he is
currently negotiating with a bank in the
airport area, within the commercial and
industrial strip between Birch and
Campus Drive, north of Dove and
MacArthur Boulevard. He stated that
currently this commercial area, with
parcels that range about 29,000 sq. ft.
to serveral that are larger, pie- shaped,
or with multiple lot ownership, includes
parking structures within the FAR
calculation. The problem he sees with
this is that in this particular area, by
including the parking structure in the
• FAR, they lose the ability to design a
project that has the open space
characteristics of either Newport Place
Volume 42 - Page 438
87 -1(A&
COUNCIL MEMBERS
y �
J,G9y��G��P�
G
LL CALL %P
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
or the Koll Center Newport projects,
where you are able to conglomerate your
parking structures into one area, and
free up less of the.site. His company
has done a preliminary analysis
regarding the property they are looking
at, which is commonly known as Coco's
site, where there is a twin - restaurant
and a bank building and some
miscellaneous space and some unused
allowable area under the FAR of about
4,500 sq. ft. He stated that to provide
parking, it requires about 355 spaces at
325 sq. ft,. an average space, which
comes up to 115,000 sq. ft., and
represents a .83 FAR. He added what
they are suggesting is that the area be
opened up in the same sense that the
other two major areas within the
airport statistical area zone, and to
not include the parking structure in the
FAR. He commented that it would behoove
the City to encourage the use of parking
structures, as opposed to parking on the
surface with more acres of asphalt, and
instead, have more acres of green.
Bob Lenard, responded that the standards
for the airport area, Koll Center and
Newport Place, do not count parking
structures in the allowable development,
as these two areas are planned
communities and have very complicated
development standards that include many
large lots, a lot of open spaces,
parking structures and a higher height
limit with taller buildings. He added
that the proximity of this area to the
flight path out of John Wayne Airport
makes it subject to the Federal Aviation
Administration's height plane
restrictions; therefore, the ability to
build taller buildings does not exist
where it does in the adjacent planned
communities.
Bill Wren, 1118 E. Balboa Boulevard,
representing the Balboa Peninsula Point
Association, addressed the Council,
stating that they appreciate the effort
of the Planning Commission and the staff
to keep all of them fully informed and
they have done a superb job. He stated
that on the straw vote the Council will
vote for biannual traffic counts on the
Peninsula, and they appreciate this, as
this would have been one of his
recommendations. He stated that he
wanted to thank the Planning Commission,
in particular Buzz Person, for
acknowledging the uniqueness of the
Volume 42 - Page 439
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMI
i
,r
u
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
Balboa Peninsula and the use of GPA 87 -1(A&
identifiable measures to help reduce the E)
impact of high volume traffic on the bay
and beach area community. He suggested
that the City continue to work with the
State to identify those traffic areas
that have to be funded and make sure
that these: get into the State's 5 -year
budget program; but the critical
situation, obviously, is the widening of
the Coast Highway, Via Lido, and Newport
Boulevard. He added that they do
support the Planning Commission's
recommendation for the 2 units for 2,375
sq. ft. lots; and if the FAR discussed
today creates more open architecturally
pleasing projects, without pushing the
overall intensity of use, then they
would be in favor of it. He also asked
that if future applications must conform
with the General Plan, even before the
Specific Area Plan is adopted, will the
General Plan be the guide and
enforceable for future projects.
The City Attorney stated "yes" the
Specific Area Plan will have to be
consistent with the General Plan.
Paul Balalis, 1129 E. Balboa Boulevard,
addressed the Council with a request to
recommend that the Council adopt item
I11 -2 and believes that this would
accomplish exactly what the Planning
Commission and staff had been working on
for the past year. He stated that he
would like to thank very much both Bob
Lenard, and Patty Temple, as well as Bob
Burnham for working together with them
this past week to see how open space
really helps and they feel the level
that is recommended to the Council
tonight really does help the
neighborhood and the community, as well
as the individual who will be developing
his particular property. He commented
that in his discussion with Bob Lenard,
he recommended that a figure of 10% open
space be used, and this may not be the
right forum to address this issue, but
perhaps when the City comes up with some
development standards in the future,
this is something that should be
considered.
Gail Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive, addressed
the Council, thanking them for the
community, outreach program that was
provided this year in regard to the
General Plan, adding that it has been
Volume 42 - Page 440
COUNCIL MEMBERS
IN
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
outstanding, and that Newport Heights
has exercised all the privileges of the
program. She stated that although the
homeowners of the Newport Heights
Community Association are not property
owners on Mariners Mile, or Newport
Boulevard, they care very much about the
density, bulk and height. She added
that their Association respect what the
Planning Commission has gone through to
write this General Plan, and have
observed first -hand the professionalism
with which the staff has written this
General Plan, and they endorse, and
would like. the Council to sustain the
recommendation of the Planning
Commission and include above grade
parking. She stated that they are
addressing Mariners Mile for the future,
the quality of the environment, the open
space, the bay and the harbor view.
In answer to Mayor Pro Tem Hart's
question as to what would be the maximum
project that could go into Mariner's
Mile if I]:I -A, 2 is approved, to which
Bob Lenard stated the following: for
example, a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, under the
proposed standards, if it was to be
developed with commercial office use,
would be allowed a FAR of around .5. If
• higher traffic generating use, such as
• restaurant, or fast -food restaurant
would go in, it would be at a lower FAR,
probably in the range of .2 to .3, and
this tends to be pretty much what
naturally occurs because of the parking
requirements of those types of uses.
Most fast-food restaurants and
restaurants do come in at lower FAR's,
because of the required on -site parking.
If a hotel, or motel type use would be
developed, the FAR for the use could be
increased up to .75 as long as the
traffic for an essentially retail .5 use
was not exceeded, with traffic
generation being the limitation. In
addition to that, if structuralized
parking was provided, or covered above
grade parking was provided, it could
allow up to .25 of covered parking above
grade before it would count towards that
FAR. In terms of building bulk, it
would mean that for a straight retail or
office building, the building envelope
including parking, as well, could be as
much as .75, and for the hotel -type of
use, it could be .75 plus the .25 for
covered parking, so that the building
envelop could be as high as 1.0.
volume 42 - Page 441
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMI
S �
.w, 'A
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 19813
Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot addressed the
Council stating that the foregoing could
provide the possibility that there could
be a 1.0 FAR structure in Mariners Mile,
and that is approximately the size of
the Anderson building in Mariners Mile.
He feels that this building is
universally disliked because of its
bulk, size and the fact that it cuts off
the views of'the bay, and would
recommend that the Council sustain the
recommendation of the Planning
Commission and include above grade
parking in the FAR limit.
Bob Lenard stated that the Anderson
building is a combined FAR including the
above grade parking at 1.25, but the use
in the building, which is essentially
retail or higher because of the
restaurant, is at .95, so that there is
no way than such a traffic intensive, or
parking intensive use could be built on
the parcel under the proposed
regulations. It would be limited to the
.5, and the .5 traffic cap placed on the
property.
Ernest George, 2865 East Coast Highway,
addressed the Council, stating that he
wanted to point out some of the problems
with a .5 size building in Corona del
Mar. He added that most of the lots
there are 30 x 80, or 30 x 100 ft. lots,
and if you had a lot that did not have
streets on two sides, you could not
build more than .35 x the buildable,
because the parcel would not allow you
sufficient turn - around area. He went on
to say that assuming you had a 10,000
sq. ft. lot, you could build a 3,000 sq.
ft. building if you wanted to provide
for parking. He added that especially
for Corona del Mar, those people who try
to build a new structure will not be
able to build one that would be
economically feasible, and he feels it
cannot be done. He also stated that he
has no more property to be developed,
but is speaking for those who have. He
stated if,.in fact, the amount of
density can vary with the property,
allowing some variety for the type of
buildings that could go up in the future
in Corona del Mar, that they be allowed
to put two or three properties together
and build a decent structure. He added
that with the cost of the land and with
the amount of parking required to build
a commercial structure, the City is
Volume 42 - Page 442
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
0
V y
•
•
C
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
condemning the properties in Corona del
Mar to never be developed, unless they
have a very large parcel. He believes
that any below ground parking should not.
count at all as far as building density
because you can't see the parking. He
feels that the Council should keep an
open mind, and not simply say that you
can only build .25, or .75.
Dee Dee Masters, addressed the Council
again, stating she agreed with what
Ernie George said, that with limiting
development of those little lots in
Corona del Mar to .5, it is not
economically feasible to build anything,
and is opposed to the .5 FAR. She
does think that the parking lots behind
the buildings and the buildings
themselves provide a buffer to the
residential area, to protect them from
the noise, fumes and the dirt from the
cars on the highway, and those things
should be considered.
Sanford R. Willford, 62 Linda Isle, and
property owner in the Lido Village,
addressed the Council, stating that at
the time be and his wife bought the
property you could build a two story
structure on it, but they have not done
so as yet. He stated that as he
understands it, the property he owns, if
it is included in the Lido Village
computations, they will not be able to
build a second story, other than what
they already have, and feel that if the
concept is for the benefit of the entire
City, then the entire City should cover
the cost. Another issue that should
come up, is that they do have certain
parking rights in the parking structure.
According to the City Attorney, he
understands that the parking rights they
have would be counted in the FAR,
whatever that means, whether it be
restripped parking, or full -size
parking, and they do not know what area
they will be entitled to get from that,
and the issue is open. They were trying
to work out an entire program for the
Lido Village as there are problems
related to the Village, parking
distribution, parking rights in the
structure. They would like to continue
with the rights that were attached to
the property.when he and his wife bought
it. He wants an answer as to how much
Volume 42 - Page 443
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
G
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
space is allotted as far as exterior GPA 87 -1(A&
parking spaces, non -site parking spaces E)
with the calculations as they pertain to
the FAR.
Bob Lenard, in response to the above,
stated that they went as far as the Lido
Village area trying to calculate what
the existing FAR's were, exclusive of
above grade parking to try and determine
if there was going to be any appreciable
growth allowed by the proposed General
Plan, and the answer is "no." He stated
that the Lido Village is fairly close to
the .5 in terms of the development lid
that would be on that entire area as a
whole. He added that since they have
talked about extending this .25
allowance for above grade covered
parking, which would affect the Lido
Village area, they have not gone back
and calculated whether that parking
structure is somewhat less than that, so
there could be some more commercial
development in that area, but he doesn't
know the answer to the question as how
it would apply to Lido Shops, and
particularly to the differences between
the Lido Shops and Lido Village.
The City Attorney commented that he
doesn't think the Lido Shops properties
are located on the same subdivided
parcel as Lido Village, so he doesn't
think the City would count the covered
parking that is off -site against Mr.
Willford's FAR. As far as his current
development, it probably contains
coverage equal to, or in excess of .5,
so it may be "moot" to talk about the
impact of covered parking on his
development rights, and the .5 FAR is
the real control here.
Mr. Willford, stated that he disagrees
with the City Attorney; in that lot one
is where the structure is, and the
structure is the tract.
In response to Council Member Strauss's
inquiry, the City Attorney stated that
this is a General Plan Amendment
designed to correlate the Land Use
Element and the Circulation Element, and
the City purposely tried to minimize the
extent to which there was specific
consideration of individual parcels. He
added that this was something the
Council agreed upon earlier in the
process, because it is hard enough just
to balance the two elements, so there
Volume '42 - Page 444
COUNCIL MEMBERS
R
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
are a lot of details.in terms of how
specific provisions of the Land Use
Element will operate in one given
situation or another that we can address
through appropriate zoning standards.
He stated that this may be one of those
instances where we can, through the
development of precise zoning, solve Mr.
Willford's problem, so that the big
parking structure which exists does not
prevent his right to develop additional
square footage on his property.
In answer to an additional comment by
Council Member Strauss regarding
relaxing the City's parking standards in
the foregoing situation, the City
Attorney stated that neither the staff
nor the Council has the power to modify
the .5 FAR which is really the
controlling factor in terms of
generating traffic trips. He added that
they would have to work within the
parameters of the General Plan, and by
addressing particular problems such as
off -site structures, it can be handled
through the zoning process.
Russ Fluter, 510 30th Street, Cannery
Village, addressed the Council, stating
that he is representing several property
owners, including a total of 27 lots in
the area. He commented that he was
happy to see that the staff has come up
with a slight improvement which will
give them a little bit more flexibility
in building a nicer residence on the
second story with covered parking, and
is in favor of Section III -A -2.
Jerry Tucker, 466 Flower Street, Costa
Mesa, owner.of property at 508 Old
Newport, addressed the Council, stating
that if covered parking is included in
the FAR, the small commercial projects
are not economically feasible to
develop, as many of the lots here, are
limited to 6,000-sq. ft. He added that
in the Land Use Element, the City's
policy is to ensure redevelopment of
older and underutilized property and to
preserve the value, but the FAR
specified would only allow for modest
growth. He asked that the Council
take under consideration, the property
owners in Old Newport that don't have
properties that can be developed very
easily unless you have some covered
parking.
Volume 42 - Page 445
E)
87 -1(A&
COUNCIL MEMI
Motion
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
xl x l x l x l x l x
X
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
In response to Council Member Maurer's
comments regarding the property owners
rights in Old Newport, Bob Lenard stated
that the standards that apply to both
small and larger lots, are the standards
the Council will vote on now. These
standards would apply to all the older
commercial areas including Corona del
Mar and Old Newport Boulevard, although
there are some other items on the
checklist relating to those two areas,
but the basic PAR issue should be
addressed now.
In answer to question as to what is
considered a small lot, Mr. Lenard
stated that it could range anywhere from
2,000 sq. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft. The
standards would apply to all lots, both
small and large lots in commercial areas
equally. In terms of how the standards
impact, this is primarily felt by the
smaller property owner, where you end up
being forced, because of design
constraints, to cover parking in order
to get up to the .5 FAR; whereas on a
larger lot you have more design
flexibility and it is easier to design
parking.
x Discussion ensued, wherein Council
Member Maurer's motion to approve A -II
in the foregoing was corrected by staff
to mean item III -A -2 from the
modifications and additions to the straw
vote guide, was voted on as follows:
"Modify the recommendation of the
Planning Commission by including within
the floor area limits only that above
grade covered parking which exceeds a
.25 FAR for Exclusive Commercial use.
and a .35 FAR for Mixed Use Residential;
and establish a 1.25 FAR for all Mixed
Use Residential areas."
I COMMERCIAL ISSUES:
Old Newport Boulevard
Council Member Bart made a motion to
approve the following language regarding
Old Newport Boulevard: "Extend the mixed
use designation to all commercial
properties easterly of Old Newport
Boulevard."
Roger Schwenk addressed the Council
stating that 13 years ago, he bought the
property at 477 N. Newport Rd., and at
that time the zoning was for mixed use
Volume 42 - Page 446
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
ti
AG�y �G��'r
G{�
oAl , /,., ,��+ 1
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
residential and commercial. He added
that they have considered the
possibility of developing the property .
with the idea of building a commercial
structure with an apartment where he and
his wife could live in, and let one of
his sons occupy their home, that they
have occupied for the past 21 years, in
the heights. He added now the City has
wiped that: out for the part of Old
Newport where he owns property, and
saying it is acceptable for the other
side. He commented that the people who
studied the original plan initially were
somewhat knowledgeable of noise
problems, and felt it was acceptable at
that time„ and he doesn't see why it is
not acceptable now. He also stated it
is his request that if mixed usage is
allowed on the east side of the road,
why not allow it on the west side of the
road, and give some flexibility to a
small property owner to make it a little
bit more Economically feasible to
develop.
Bob Lenard, responded in an attempt to
clarify the issue with the following:
Under the existing General Plan which
was amended in the middle or late 70's,
mixed use was allowed in all of the Old
Newport Boulevard area, and is allowed
under today's zoning in all of the area
including the island area between Old
Newport and Newport Boulevard, which is
the State right -of -way. Under the plan
that came forward from the Planning
Commission, it was suggested that only a
very small portion of Old Newport
Boulevard, the area that has the double
frontage along Catalina, be designated
for mixed use, and that the other areas
be exclusively commercial. The
alternative which was suggested on the
checklist this evening, would be as Mr.
Schwenk indicated, to extend the mixed
use area to include everything easterly
of Old Newport Boulevard, but still not
allowing mixed use in the island area
between the two major roadways. The
reasoning behind that was concerns about
noise impacts on residential uses in
that area, in close proximity to Newport
Boulevard, as opposed to Old Newport
Boulevard.
Volume 42 - Page 447
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
ti n
G
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
Roger Williams, resident of North GPA 87 -1(AS
Newport Boulevard, addressed the Council B)
stating that according to Mr. Lenard and
Mr. Hewicker, that if you put parking
below grade it is not included in the
.5, to which Mr. Hewicker replied in the
affirmative.
Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot, 2221 16th
Street, addressed the Council, stating
that this area is very similar to the
Mariners Mile area, or contiguous to it
around the right angle turn, and in
Mariners Mile area no mixed use
development is allowed. He suggested
that if the City allows mixed use
designations on Old Newport Boulevard,
then this increases traffic in his.area
of Newport Heights, and he feels that
mixed use should not be designated as
recommended.
Delores Vowles, 510 Old Newport
Boulevard, addressed the Council,
stating that they have been residents
for 35 years, and have worked and saved
for this home. She added that she has
just lost a husband after 10 years
illness, and the financial burden has
been terrible. She also stated that if
the recommended action is approved, she
will have to be dependent on Medicaid
when she gets to be a little bit older,
and she asked if anything could be done
about the density reduction situation to
keep it at .2 x buildable, as no one
will buy her property.
Jerry Tucker, 466 Flower Street, Costa
Mesa, and owner of property at 508 Old
Newport Boulevard, which is adjacent to
Mrs. Vowles, stated that what she was
trying to say is that property values
have been lost at .5 FAR. He commented
that everyone talks about the current
zoning regulations which would allow 2.0
FAR on lots that we own, but
realistically they can't build something
that is 2.0. He added that he did some
studies on his property and Mrs. Vowles
property for her, and also combined
studies and sent a letter to all of the
Council Members. He stated that he
could get .8 FAR on his lot under
current zoning, and Mrs. Vowles could
get .84 FAR and if we combine the lots
we could get 1.0 FAR, meeting all the
zoning requirements for parking, height
restrictions, and setbacks. He also
Volume 42 — Page 448
COUNCIL MEMBERS
""*,r
�
•
All Ayes
•
Motion
All Ayes
•
Ix
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
stated that when he bought the property
nine years ago he felt it would increase
in value, but he may have to sell it now
for less than what he bought it for,
which is unfair to a small lot owner,
and as a compromise he fully supports
the mixed use.
George Baker, 434 No. Newport Boulevard,
addressed the Council, stating that he
is greatly in favor of the mixed use,
and he has, a small lot. In his
northwest area, they get in their cars
and go to Costa Mesa because it is
easier to trade there. He added that if
this section could be developed to
provide services for the people there,
it would bring in some revenue for
Newport Beach without sending people to
Costa Mesa.
The motion, as presented, was voted on
and carried.
COMMERCIAL ISSUES:
Mariners Mile
Bob Lenard stated that this is to
clarify language based on some comments
received from merchants in the Mariners
Mile area during the last City Council
meeting that talked about the City going
into the :specific plan later for
amendments, and a fear that this might
further reduce FAR's below .5.
Council Member Turner made a motion to
approve the revised language on page 51
of the draft Land Use Element, as
follows: "Mariners Mile. Mariners Mile
is a Specific Area Plan located along
West Coast Highway from Newport
Boulevard to Rocky Point. Land north of
Coast Highway is shown for Retail and
Service Commercial, and land bayward of
Coast Highway is shown for Recreational
and Marine Commercial land use. The
permitted floor area ratio is 0.5/0.75.
No mixed use development is allowed in
this area. The provisions of the
Specific Area Plan will be reviewed in
the areas of height and the provision of
public visual open space. The Specific
Area Plan review is not intended to
result in further reductions to the
permitted floor area ratio."
1
Volume 42 - Page 449
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMI
r Ot y !' 4P,, ...,�A
Motion
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ix
MINUTES
October 24, 19138
COMMERCIAL ISSUES:
Corona del Mar - Council Member Sansone
made the motion to support the following
recommended language:
Revise the language on page 46 of the
draft Land Use Element, as follows:
"Corona del Mar Commercial. This
area is designated for Retail and
Service Commercial; Administrative,
Professional, and Financial
Commercial; and Governmental,
Educational, and Institutional
Facilities use. The allowed floor
area ratio is 0.5/0.75. Commercial
res
to
increase
the extent
generated
use. The Corona del Mar Commercial
strip and the immediately adjacent
residential area is designated for
a Specific Area Plan, for the
preservation and enhancement of the
commercial strip and to minimize
conflicts with the adjacent
residential areas, including the
development of appropriate design
criteria and off street parking
standards."
Bob Lenard, in response to Council
inquiry, made reference to the
modifications and additions to the straw
voting guide, and stated that Corona del
Mar commercial area is referenced under
"D." After meeting with many of the
property owners, one of the concerns
that was presented by those property
owners who had purchased residential
lots adjacent to commercial properties,
and were using those lots to provide
required parking for the commercial use
on the commercially designated parcels,
was that they would not receive any
credit for those residential lots and
would be treated the same as if they
hadn't been trying to provide that
additional parking. He added the
language that has been suggested would
allow partial credit, but only within
the traffic limits set by the
Volume 42 - Page 450
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
.0
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
residential designation, i.e., a
property owner who owned a commercial
lot and residential lots could increase
the commercial FAR based on the
residential lots, but only to the degree
that the combined traffic did not exceed
what would be allowed with residential
use for those residentially designated
parcels.
Dick Nichols, 519 Iris, Corona del Mar,
addressed the Council, stating he was
concerned that this is a conversion of
residential to commercial, and also,
that parking should be built into
residential contiguously within the
Specific Area Plan, to which the City
Attorney added that this is the purpose
of the foregoing language presented by
Mr. Lenard. The City Attorney also
stated that this doesn't change the
provisions of the City's zoning code
which would require the off -site parking
use to be tied to the commercial use on
the strict commercial, and that the City
does not intend to change the
provisions. The City Attorney added
that if the motion would include the
understanding that there isn't, by this
language, supposed to be any
"leapfrogging" of existing residential
uses, so that parcels deeper into the
residential areas are used for
commercial parking purposes, we can
draft specific language to satisfy Mr.
Nichols' concerns.
Council Member Sansone stated that he
was concerned about the small lots in
Corona deal Mar, and that because they
are too small to develop, there could be
a gradual. deterioration of the strip,
and this in turn could complicate the
economic viability of that strip. He
added that the same properties referred
to do not: have any off -site parking, and
as a result parking is ending up on
residential streets, which compounds the
problem of the residents. He also added
that he will support the recommendation
because it does give the City some
leeway in hopes that maybe the property
owners will combine the properties and
thus provide some parking off - street, as
the lack of parking in the commercial
district is chronic. He commented that
although there are good sized parking
lots on both sides of the town, the
residents will not walk from the parking
lots to the commercial areas.
Volume 42 - Page 451
COUNCIL MEMI
AIR5.., ,
All Ayes
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
The motion, as presented, was voted on
and carried.
SPECIFIC SITES:
Newport Center Library
John Nicoll, 1984 Port Nelson Place,
Member representing the Library Board of
Trustees, addressed the Council,
summarizing the events that led up to
choosing a site in Newport Village,
adjacent to the new Art Museum for the
possible relocation of the Newport
Center Library, and urged the Council's
approval.
Discussion ensued, wherein Mayor Pro Tem
Hart inquired what is planned on the
Newport Village site if the four acres
are included, to which Bob Lenard stated
the following: Assuming the Council
adopts the suggested action, this area
would include the Art Museum at the
southerly tip; (10 acres) the option to
build a four acre library site; and in
addition to that; a four acre park. The
remainder of the site would be
commercial office development at an FAR
of .2. Because of the topography of
Newport Village, there is the ability
within Newport Center to possibly
transfer the commercial (office)
development to another site,
particularly if the library does go on
the Newport Village site, it may be a
mix of public uses and office, or it may
be entirely public use and open space
ultimately.
In answer to Council Member Strauss's
inquiry, Dave Dmohowski, representing
The Irvine Company, addressed the
Council stating that their intent, as
far as Civic Plaza, would be to do an
intensity of use very similar to what
they have there now, which is a one and
two story garden office.
Dick Nichols, representing the Corona
del Mar Community Association, addressed
the Council, stating that they have
worked a ]long time to try and get some
parkland in this area, and the tie -in of
the library with the museum in this
beautiful area is a fine thing, and a
far better use for the land.
Volume 42 - Page 452
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
AG�y��G�YP'\ Cf �9G
Motion
All Ayes
•
•
J
X
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Hart to
support the following:
"Newport Center Library - Revise
pages 65 and 68 of the draft Land
Use Element to allow for the
possible relocation of the Newport
Center Library to the Newport
Village site discussed in the City
Manager's memo dated October 10,
1988, as specifically set forth in
Attachment "A," and summarized
below:
"Civic Plaza: Add library
relocation alternate which would:
1. Delete 14,000 sq. ft. of
library use.
2. Add 57,150 sq. ft. of
office use." I
"Newport Village: Add library
relocation alternate which would:
1. Add 50,000 sq. ft. of
library use.
2. Delete approximately
35,000 sq. ft. of office
use.
3. Add language regarding
dedication of park site."
"Add language to the discussion of
Newport Village park site
indicating:
"The irrevocable offer shall
not obligate the property
owner to dedicate the property
prior to issuance of permits
for the office development
onsite or offsite, or the
execution of a development
agreement which vests the
property owners rights to
construct the allowable
development."
Volume 42 - Page 453
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
S �
G�Z �G
� N
•A 1\
&on
•
•
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 19138
SPECIFIC SITES•
Jamboree /MacArthur
Council Member Turner stated that the
intent is to provide some encouragement
for a small amount of development to
clean up this area, and made the motion
to approve IV —B with the following
language:
"Administrative, Professional and
Financial Commercial .25 FAR."
Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot, 2221 16th
Street, addressed the Council, stating
that he wanted to refer to the letter
he wrote to Council about this property
with the following comments: The reason
why it looks bad, is because the entry
to the property is not landscaped, and
there are a lot of weeds between the
sidewalk and the curb, and if the
Council approves recreation and open
space, as recommended by the Planning
Commission, then a landscaped entry
would make it look a lot better. Also,
for the record, this intersection which
has 4.5 acres in it is one of the
richest riparian fresh water habitats in
Newport Beach, and there is a fresh
water lake at the bottom of this parcel,
surrounded by a nearly impenetrable
thicket of bushes, trees and marsh
grass. Further, that on personal visits
there he has seen flocks of goldfinch,
as well as warblers, doves and a large
bird that flew from a nest in the
thicket, and he has also seen animals
such as rabbits and marsh mice in the
dry land above the lake and the soggy
marshland adjacent to the lake. There
is connection to the Upper Bay by way of
a large culvert exiting the parcel, and
added that there is a controversy as to
where the water is coming from in that
lake - -some people think it is runoff
from the streets above it, but every
time he has been up there, there is no
runoff into the lake, but there has
always been runbff out of the lake,
which leads him to believe that this
area might represent another one of the
unknown springs in Newport Beach. The
fact that access is difficult, is that
as most people don't know about it and
don't know how to get to it, and that
his suggestion for a landscaped entry
would take care of the unsightly
condition.
Volume 42 — Page 454
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMI
y p\
A q
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that on page
5 of the staff report, that these
parcels were recommended by the Planning
Commission to be designated for
Recreation and Environmental Open Space
(REDS), and they established entitlement
limits on several Irvine Company parcels
which previously had none. He added
that the designation of these sites to
the REOS category was in consideration
for the entitlement established, whereby
the Planning Commission gave The Irvine
Company entitlement on other properties
in return for the REOS category for this
property. He further stated that, since
this is one of the few undisturbed
riparian wetlands areas in Newport
Beach, he would urge that the Council
keep it as such, and support the
Planning Commission recommendation.
Dick Nichols addressed the Council,
stating that at the urging of Dr.
Vandersloot, he went down to see the
lake, and added that it is probably 20
feet deep„ with fish, and has a
considerable amount of marsh on one end.
He confirmed that it is an accessible
piece of property in that Jamboree is
about 50 feet higher than the property
base now, and MacArthur is actually
higher than the property. He further
stated that the lake is being polluted
by sewer runoff from Newport Center, but
the lower portion is so blue that you
can see 8 to 10 feet down into it, and
suggested that the Council take a look.
Council Member Turner stated that he
stands by his motion, adding that he,
too, has walked by that site, but is not
sure whether it is fresh water coming
out there, or runoff; and before it is
considered for development, that there
certainly be environmental impact
reports prepared on it.
In response to inquiry by Council Member
Sansone, Bob Lenard stated there was a
possibility that a loop,ramp would take
a portion of the property in relation to
the interchange of the Corona del Mar
Freeway and the San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor.
Mayor Pro Tem Hart stated that after
spending some time with the Planning
Commissioners to understand what the
trade -offs were with The Irvine Company,
she supports the Planning Commission,
and will be voting against the motion,
Volume 42 - Page 455
GPA 87- 1(A &E)
COUNCIL MEMI
AG�Z��G�YPA c+ol.
Ayes
Noes
Motion
•
All Ayes
ion
Ayes
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
xIxIxlxIxIx
x
MINUTES
October 24, 19118
The motion, as presented, was voted on
and carried.
SPECIFIC SITES:
Freeway Reservation East
Council Member Turner made a motion to
approve IV -C, as follows:
"Single Family attached, 76
dwelling units (Existing General
Plan)."
Mayor Cox stated, that personally he
hopes that nothing is built on the
subject property, and he added that
three or :four years ago he attempted to
have this property entitlement
transferred some place else so that the
City could have an open corridor, but to
take this land without some transfer
capability here, doesn't makes sense.
He added that it is a great open space
corridor and at one time the City had
over $1 million dedicated to the
landscaping and beautification of that
area, and by not leaving some
entitlement we would not have some
negotiating ability to change this, and
he further stated that he will support
the motion.
The motion, as presented, was voted on
and carried.
SPECIFIC SITES•
Marinapark
Bob Lenard responded that the language
originally proposed was based on what
existed in the current version of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan,
and Recreation and Open Space Element.
He stated he has provided some language
to make the language in the General Plan
now more consistent with that already
adopted by the City Council in the
context of the lease, which has been
renewed since the adoption of the
Recreation and Open Space and the
previous Land Use Element.
Council Member Strauss, stated that the
foregoing was a very good explanation.
He added that he was one of those
involved in negotiating the lease which
doesn't expire until the year 2,000, and
wanted to make it clear that the City
Council, at that time, would have the
Volume 42 - Page 456
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
y n
\SX\I6\ rG9Z �G�g A� ��'P "tOctober 24, 1988
MINUTES
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
authority to do what they wanted to do;
therefore, he made the motion to revise
the language on pages 34 -35 of the draft
•
Land Use Element, as follows:
"Marinapark. This site is located
on the bay front between 18th
Street and 15th Street. It is
designated for Recreation and
Environmental Open Space, and is
proposed to be ultimately used for
aquatic facilities, expanded beach
and community facilities such as
the existing American Legion. The
existing mobile home park use will
be allowed to continue until the
end of the existing lease. At that
time the City will make the
decision as to whether the lease
should be further extended, or the
property converted to public use."
SPECIFIC SITES:
St. James Church
Council Member Strauss commented that
for four or five years the church has
been trying to expand, with adequate
parking. He added that they also
considered selling the property to a
commercial group, but could not do this
if the Institutional designation was
placed on it, and the question is
whether or not there is any way to let
them have a commercial designation for a
year or two so that they can sell the
property.
David Anderson, St. James Church, Via
Lido, addressed the Council, stating
that as he understands it, they do have,
unless the City changes it, the retail,
service, commercial zoning, and that the
City would be changing it to a
governmental, educational, institutional
designation; therefore, they are not
asking for something that they don't
already have. He added that the value
of the property is considerably
different if it is commercial vs.
governmental, perhaps as much as
$800,000 or $1 million, and makes quite
a bit of difference if they were to sell
•
it to buy some other property nearby.
He also stated that it makes quite a bit
of difference in the circumstance that
the church finds itself, as they are in
some preliminary negotiations with
Volume 42 - Page 557
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
•
Motion
COUNCIL MEMBERS
x
Motion x
Ayes x x
Noes x x x
•
Motion
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
X I x
X
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
lenders and want to use the property as CPA 87 -1(A&
collateral, and if the property was E)
maintained at least for a couple of
years zoned as commercial, as it now is,
lenders are at least willing to talk to
them.
Discussion ensued, wherein Council
Member Turner stated he believes that
they should be consistent throughout the
City regarding zoning for the churches.
He added that if the congregation does
decide to sell the property, they are
not prohibited from asking for a General
Plan Amendment, changing the zoning
back, and that the value may even exceed
what it might be if it is rezoned to
government, educational, institutional;
therefore, he made the motion to support
E -1, which changes St. James Church
zoning to "Governmental, Educational and
Institutional (Planning Commission
Recommendation). 01
Council Member Strauss made a substitute
motion that, under the peculiar
circumstances this church faces, we
retain the retail, commercial, service
at 05.7/75 FAR for not longer than two
years, and at the end of the two years,
it would become governmental,
educational and institutional.
SPECIFIC SITES:
Crown House /A. T. Leo's Site
Council Member Sansone made a motion
to adopt F -1, "Retail and Service
Commercial at 0.5/.75 FAR (Planning
Commission Recommendation) with the
height being limited to 24 feet measured
from the top of the adjacent Pacific
Coast Highway curb."
Dick Nichols, representing the Corona
del Mar Community Association, addressed
the Council, stating that originally he
did not have too much sympathy for the
people who opposed A.T. Leo's, and after
investigating this site he found that
the whole back half is residential, and
what the residents were complaining
about was a parking lot that was on
residential, that was making noise as if
it were zoned commercial. He added that
now what is being done on this
particular site is taking over half of
the site which is residential and
Volume 42 - Page 458
COUNCIL MEMI3ERS
4P'A
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
converting; it all to commercial,
allowing the buildable and the setbacks
to be all commercial on the entire
property, and where there was a 20 foot
alley on the site that separated
residential from commercial, where it
presently has a 20 foot alley and a lot
separating, because it was used as a
parking lot, and all of that is being
abandoned. He further stated that if it
were just residential, the people would
have the height limit suggested by
Council Member Sansone, but they would
know that they would not have a
full -blown commercial establishment
there that: can have full underground
parking because it has access to that
whole lot, which is about 140 yards
long, and a good deal bigger than a
football field, with plenty of room for
a massive development, if it is zoned
commercial. He stated that he thinks
the height: limit helps, but we would
have access problems on Hazel and Coast
Highway because there are no
turn - arounds, and the size of the
building on that would be bigger than
the previous project that was withdrawn
because of so much opposition from the
residents,.
Bob Lenard stated, that as Mr. Nichols
indicated, the property had been
designated in the General Plan for a
portion of it being commercial and a
portion residential, and continued with
the following history: When the first
congregate care project came before the
City Council, the project was approved
and the General Plan was changed to
allow nothing but a congregate care
facility on that property. Because of
the controversy associated with that
project and its subsequent revision, the
Planning Commission's recommendation, as
it is coming to Council, would eliminate
that restriction that it only be a
senior citizens housing facility to
allow commercial use like the rest of
the Corona del Mar area, with the
ability to build senior citizen housing
existing as it does in all of the areas
of Corona del Mar. The property is
currently zoned P -C and has been
combined into one single parcel of land.
Any development of the parcel would have
to conform to the setbacks, ingress and
egress requirements that would be
developed in the use permit, and under
that P -C zoning.
Volume 42 - Page 459
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
AAI i Al c 1 9G� October 24, 1988
0
•
MINUTES
Discussion ensued, wherein Len Seltzer,
519 Hazel Drive, who spoke from the
audience, stated that a massive building
in that area on that lot is what the
residents have been fighting against for
a year, and commercial use would make
the buildable far greater, and as
obnoxious to the residents as what was
finally forced to be withdrawn.
Bob Lenard, in response to Council
inquiry, stated that Mr. Nichols'
comments :regarding setbacks, and ingress
and egress, are not accurate, because
the City would be required to approve a
use permit, or a P -C zoning for the
property. He added, that in terms of
the allowable building bulk, if bulk is
the only issue regarding use, with a
facility Like the congregate care
facility that would be proposed for the
property, you could go up to .75 FAR
because of the low traffic generation
characteristics of that type of a use.
In addition to that, based on the
previous straw votes of the Council, you
could add to that a .25 FAR credit for
any above grade structure parking, and
as far as building bulk you could have a
1.0 structure on the property, subject
to the review of the Planning Commission
and the Council at the zoning stage.
The Planning Director stated that the
City's P -C zoning allows a piece of
property within the P -C zone to be
developed either, subject to a P -C
developed plan, which could be a
customized zoning ordinance specifying
heights, setbacks, types of uses, FAR,
and would allow a developer to come in
with a use permit without any previously
developed. P -C development plan, or it
would allow the developer to substitute
one of the existing zoning districts as
the P -C developed plan. For example, it
could say,'residential use, subject to
the R -1 single family residential zone,
and in this case they would build one,
possibly very nice single family
dwelling on this large piece of
property. If the intent of the people
in the area, and the City Council was to
tie this to some type of P -C development
plan that is going to be adopted
subsequent to the adoption of the
General Plan, perhaps it should say that
the P -C development plan is going to be
a text or a customized zoning ordinance,
and not ;just a use permit or a referral
to one of the other planning districts.
Volume 42 - Page 460
COUNCIL MEMBERS
�-k
•
All Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
•
Motion
•
X
X
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 19138
The City Attorney suggested that
language should be put in the plan that
waives the requirements in the P -C
standards for minimum acreage size, so
that there is a requirement with no
loopholes. Further, he stated that there
be no development of the site until
there is a P -C zoning applied to the
property and that the minimum acreage
provisions of the P -C zone will not
apply to this site, i.e., there has to
be a P -C :cone approved by the Planning
Commission before there is any
development approved on the site, plus
any other approval required.
The motion, as presented by Council
Member Sansone, and amended to add "that
provided no development shall occur
until precise zoning of the site, and
that the minimum_ acreage standards of
Chapter 20.51 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code shall not apply," was
voted on, and carried.
ERRATA:
Mayor Pro Tem Hart made a motion to
approve the following: "The revisions
indicating typograhpic errors and
numeric corrections contained in the
October 5 and October 10 errata shall be
adopted."
CIRCULATION ELEMENT:
Dover Drive
Discussion ensued regarding the
projected Volume -to- Capacity ratio, and
the Public Works Director added that
this would be .75 as a Major, .95
Primary Augmented, and 1.12 as Primary
arterial, so as a Straight primary, it
would be exceeded. He stated that the
Planning Commission recommendation was
to retain it as a Major designation with
the .75 V/C ratio, which would allow for
a Level of Service "C," for the year
2010.
Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem. Hart to
approve the Planning Commission
recommendation as follows: "Dover Drive
between Coast Highway and Westcliff
Drive shall be a Major roadway (6
lanes)."
Volume 42 - Page 461
GPA 87 -1(A&
E)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
�GpyA�G �'A Gf 9
G
•
Ayes
Noes
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
•
•
x I x I x IX I x
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
Further discussion ensued, wherein, the
Public Works Director stated that this
straw vote item is addressed only to the
reach of Dover Drive between Coast
Highway and Westcliff.
x x The motion, as presented, was voted on
and carried.
Marguerite Avenue
x Discussion ensued, wherein Council
Member Sansone made a motion to "delete
the arterial road designation of
Marguerite Avenue between Coast Highway
and Fifth Avenue."
Balboa Peninsula
Council Member Hart made a motion to add
implementation program Number 3 on page
24 of the draft Circulation Element, as
follows: "The City shall biannually
monitor winter and summer traffic
volumes on the Balboa Peninsula, and
make the information available to the
City Council."
Discussion ensued, wherein Council
Member Strauss, amended the motion to
read that "The City shall annually
monitor in February and August traffic
volumes on the Balboa Peninsula and make
the information available to the City
Council."
CORONA DEL MAR - CARNATION MULTIFAMILY
AREA:
Bob Lenard stated that this property was
originally designated as were many
others in the area, for densities of one
unit for every 2,178 sq. ft. of land
area, which is 20 dwelling units per
acre, and which is the standard that the
City currently uses in the West Newport
Triangle Area. He added that since the
development of that standard, inquiries
from property owners in the area who are
interested in developing that particular
project, requested that because of the
lot size in that area, that just a very
minor adjustment be made to that
standard to change it to 2,140 sq. ft.
because of their particular lot size in
that area..
Volume 42 - Page.462
87 -1(A&
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Motion
•
All Ayes
•
Motion
All Ayes
C
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
x
MINUTES
October 24, 198'8
Discussion ensued, wherein Council
Member Sansone made the motion to adopt
"B. Change the standard to 1 dwelling
unit per 2,140 square feet of land area
per dwelling unit."
David Diem, 18 Corporate Plaza, and
representing Westland Commercial Corp.,
currently holds an interest in this
piece of property, and one of his
concerns was that he was startled to see
that City is actually taking a number of
1,200 sq. ft. of land required per
dwelling unit, and increasing it to
almost double, 2,178 sq. ft. per
dwelling unit. Staff indicated to him
that one of the reasons for doing that
is that the average lot size in Corona
del Mar is 30 x 118, which equates to
about 3,540 feet and they wanted to get
the number above that 1,770 sq. ft.
number. But to raise it between that
number and the 2,178 number,
substantially sets this very small R -3
area very stringently, and does not
allow other property owners in that area
to really redevelop their land.
The motion, as presented, was voted on
and carried.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING IN COMMERCIAL
AREAS:
Council Member Turner made the motion to
approve "B. Require Senior Citizen
Housing facilities constructed in
commercial areas to strictly conform to
the FAR limits established for other
commercial uses."
Lido Peninsula
Bob Lenard responded to Council inquiry,
stating that this is just an oversight,
in going over the transition for some of
the commercial sites between the
original .5 Citywide standard being
proposed and the mixed use standard, and
Lido Peninsula is.one of the areas that
didn't get changed.
Discussion ensued regarding the growth
projections, wherein Mr. Lenard stated
that the Land Use Element projections
are based on a straight .5 FAR, and one
of the reasons it shows so much growth
is because of the low intensity uses,
such as the shipyard and the restaurant,
which are low FAR's, although high
Volume 42 - Page 463
87 -1(A&
COUNCIL MEMBERS
A6 ! no
•
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
X
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
traffic generating uses. He added that
the ultimate FAR would either be at a
less or more than that .5 projection
depending upon the types of uses that
were ultimately proposed, but there
would be that much growth allowed,
assuming that the average FARS for that
area were developed at .5.
Council Member Strauss made the motion
to "Add language to the draft Land Use
Element clarifying that the commercial
FAR for Lido Peninsula is .5/.75 with
the same traffic generation limits as
other commercial areas."
Mayor Cox closed the public hearing,
bringing it back to the Council for
discussion.
Mayor Pro Tem Hart made the motion to
adopt the following:
Resolution No. 88 -99, certifying
the Environmental Impact Report;
Resolution No.88 -100, rescinding
the General Plan Policy Report
(adopted March 13, 1972 and amended
September 9, 1985) and the Land Use
Element and Map (adopted February
11, 1985) as amended; and adopting
the Land Use Element and Map (as
well as amendments to the Local
Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, the
Recreation and Open Space Element
and the Housing Element, to insure
internal consistency with the Land
Use Element) dated September 8,
1988, and the Land Use Element and
Map :Errata Sheets dated October 5,
1988, as revised by the straw
votes; and
Resolution No. 88 -101, rescinding
the Circulation Element and Master
Plan of Streets and Highways
(adopted March 11, 1974) as
amended, and adopting the
Circulation Element and Master Plan
of Streets and Highways (as well as
amendments to the Local Coastal
Program, Land Use Plan, to insure
internal consistency with the
Circulation Element) dated
September 8, 1988, as amended by
the straw votes.
Volume 42 - Page 464
CPA 87 -1(A&
E)
Res 88 -99
Res 88 -100
Res 88 -101
COUNCIL MEMBERS
G,py fG ypa of, �y'v
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
3. Mayor Cox opened the continued public
hearing and City Council review of an
APPEAL BY SAID SHOKRIAN, Corona del Mar,
from the unanimous denial by the
Planning Commission on
August 18„ 1988 of:
A. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 48 (REVISED)
Request the acceptance of a traffic
study so as to allow the construction of
a 15,950± sq. ft. retail- office building
in the "Retail Service Commercial" area
of the Mariners Mile Specific Plan. The
proposal also includes the acceptance of
an Environmental Document;
/1k17
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 49
Request to permit the construction of a
15,950±- sq. ft. combined office - retail
commercial building on property located
in the "Retail Service Commercial" area
of the Mariners Mile Specific Plan Area.
The proposal also includes a
modification to the Zoning Code so as to
allow the use of compact parking spaces
for a portion of the required off - street
parking;
0
C. VESTING BESUBDIVISION NO. 876
Request to approve a vesting
resubdivision so as to resubdivide two
existing parcels of land into a single
parcel for commercial development on
property located at 2912 and 2030 West
Coast Highway, in the "Retail Service
Commercial" area of the Mariners Mile
Specific 'Plan.
Report from the Planning Department, was
presented.
Recycled Appeal application from Said
Shokrian, dated August 24, 1988, was
presented.
Letters from J. Brennan Cassidy, M.D.,;
and Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D., in favor
of the project, were presented.
Volume 42 - Page 465
Resub 876/
Site Pln
Rv# 49/
Trc Stdy 49
Shokrian
(84)
COUNCIL
0
•
r
�i
MEMBERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
The Assistant City Clerk advised that
the following letters were received
after the agenda was printed from
Attorney Stephen A. Ellis, Harwood,
Adkinson & Meindl, representing Mr. and
Mrs. Jack Mau, owners of China Palace,
in favor of denial; and Dr. Jan D.
Vandersloot regarding the subject
project's effect on the Lancer's view
corridor from Cliff Drive Park.
The Executive Assistant to the City
Manager stated that this project comes
under the heading of an appeal, but
actually it is a new project. He added
that the project started out with over
23,000 sq. ft. that exceeded the basic
height limit, and also triggered the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), and the
project has been modified so that it is
now less than 16,000 sq. ft., within the
basic height limit, and also meets the
TPO.
The Planning Director commented that
the Traffic Study, which was prepared
for'the project, represents an attempt
to analyze what can be built on the
property, but it is not necessarily
15,950 square feet of development, as it
is divided into two uses; retail of
6,750 square feet; and office use of
9, 200 square feet. He stated that this
particular development has a Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) of.7; where the preceding
development had an FAR of .69; 93
parking spaces, vs. 65, and both
projects take their access to Avon. He
further stated that, although staff has
suggested in the Conditions of Approval
a time limit of four years, the Council
may wish to change that (unless there is
a different time limit specified, there
would only be a 24 month, or two —year
time limit on the approval of the Site
Plan Review). He also added that in
reviewing the Conditions of Approval, if
it is not already covered under one of
the existing conditions, staff
recommends that a condition be added
which would address the issue of the
screening, of the roof top mechanical
equipment, so that it would not be
visible from the park or future
residential projects.
Volume 42 — Page 466
a
Resub 876
Shokrian
COUNCIL MEMBERS
•� ° y o
Gy�<Gpp�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
October 24, 1988
MINUTES
_
Brion Jeannette, architdct for the
applicant, addressed the Council,
stating that there would be no problem
•
with the screening requirement, and
accepted the condition. He referred to
two items on page 7 of the staff report,
stating that there should be some way to
alert the traffic engineering staff when
there are certain kinds of projects that
might trip the TPO before the applicant
starts the project; and the fact that
the traffic created by this project
(15,950 sq. ft.) will be 50% of the
traffic on Avon, thus establishing a
dollar item of $15,000 to help create
widening of Avon. He questioned the
fact that the 1% traffic the project
would be creating at the intersection,
really is 50% of the traffic on Avon.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Hart, Brion
Jeannette addressed the issue of
24 -month continuance vs. 4 years,
wherein he stated that there presently
is litigation between Mr. Mau and Mr.
Shokrian that maintains the ability for
Mr. Mau to occupy the building on the
old China Palace site, which disallows
the applicant from demolishing it and
going forward, and this does not run out
•
until 1991., which is just 2 years away.
He added that the applicant could
certainly accept a 3 -year time period if
this would be acceptable to Council.
Discussion ensued, wherein the Planning
Director, in response to Council
inquiry regarding the foregoing time
limit request, stated this particular
application is a vesting map along with
a site plan review, which means that
when the project is approved, it is
approved subject to the plan and all of
the ordinances, etc., that are in
existence at the time the approval is
given. He added that when their
approval runs out, say in 2 years, they
would not be allowed to proceed under
the same regulations, but would have to
satisfy the ordinances, policies and
plans in effect at the time.
Gail Demmer, representing the Newport
Heights Community Association, stating
•
that they did review the plan in its
original conception and drawing, and
recommended the Planning Commission deny
the project due to the fact that it was
tripping the TPO, a third story, and was
Volume 42 - Page 467
Resub 876
Shokrian.
COUNCIL MEME
y n\
•,Gyy�`G��� of
•
•
Motion
11
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
obstructing partial view. She added
that they are very grateful that these
items have been mitigated, and although
they have not seen the plans; however
their association is concerned about
Avon Street, its growth and its
destination. She further stated that
they have concerns about the egress and
ingress of Avon Street.
Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot, 2221 16th
Street, addressed the Council referring
to his last letter in which he requested
his comments for qualified support of
the.revised project be modified. He
stated that after looking at the
blueprints; it is clear the Lancer's view
corridor from Cliff Drive Park could be
totally obliterated from the right -hand
corner of the park above the first
flight of stairs into the park, and
proceeded to illustrate his findings on
the wall diagram. He offered a
solution, stating that by providing a
view corridor by way of a curb cut on
Coast Highway along the entry to the
Shokrian property, the Lancer's view
corridor will be maintained. He added
that one curb cut there would still
allow removal of two existing curb cuts,
and access here could take pressure off
Avon Street and Riverside Avenue so that
a traffic signal may not be required.
He concluded by stating that more
analysis of the issues should be made,
as both the Planning Commission and the
Newport Heights Community Association
have not reviewed the blueprints of this
modified project.
After hearing no one else wishing to
address the Council, the public hearing
was closed.
Discussion ensued, wherein motion was
made by Council Member Turner to:
(a) Overrule the decision of the
Planning Commission and
approve the Vesting Map of
Resubdivision No. 876; and
(b) Approve the Revised Traffic
Study No. 48; and
Volume 42 - Page 468
876
COUNgCIL MEMBERS
\11C.
0
All Ayes
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
(c) Approve Site Plan Review No.
49, with the Findings and
subject to the Conditions of
Approval, as set forth in the
staff report, with the
exception that Page 14, Item
No. 25 be changed to read
"..24 months..."
The City Attorney offered information to
the effect that the Vesting Tentative
Map Ordinance gives the individual three
years to file the final map, and one
year to build the project once that
final map is filed, and it also allows a
one -year extension, so the applicant has
up to five! years, under the ordinance,
to proceed with the project if the
Planning Commission, or Council grants
that one year.
Discussion ensued, wherein action (c) in
the foregoing motion was revised to
leave it as is stated in the staff
report (48 months).
4. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing
regarding PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 88 -39,
being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING
TITLE 20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE SO
AS TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
PROHIBITING THE CREATION OF SECOND
FAMILY UNITS IN SINGLE - FAMILY OR
MULTI- FAMILY DISTRICTS (PLANNING
COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 6691,
was presented for second reading with
report from the Planning Department.
The Executive Assistant to the City
Manager very briefly summarized that
State law provides, as a matter of
right, the establishment of .
second - family units in all residential
districts. A second - family unit is
distinguished from a granny unit in that
second - family units can be in any
residential district and with no age
restriction; wheieas, a granny unit is
only in R -1 Districts, and the occupants
have to be over 60 years of age.
Volume 42 - Page 469
(94)
ly Units
669
COUNCIL MEME
y n\
Motion
All Ayes
C7
Motion
All Av
0
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
The Planning Director, added that
basically„ what this says is that you
are not going to allow the
second - family units mandated by the
State in those areas where they could
get either a second unit in an R -1 zone,
or a second unit in a multi - family zone
due to the size of the parcel, and this
doesn't prevent anybody from building a
duplex or triplex.
After hearing no one wishing to address
the Council on this issue, the public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Pro Tem Hart made a motion to
adopt Ordinance No. 88 -39, amending the
Municipal Code so as to prohibit the
creation of second family units in
single - family or multi - family districts.
5. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing and
City Council review of the PROPOSED
1988 -91 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN for
submission to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
This plan sets annual housing assistance
goals for new construction of affordable
rental housing, for housing rehab
assistance, and for families to be
assisted by Section 8 Rental Assistance
Program.
Report from the Planning Department, was
presented.
The Executive Assistant to the City
Manager stated that the short form
refers to the necessary documentation to
acquire the West Newport Community
Center; and the long form is a little
more involved, which refers to the
policies and plans for the housing and
assistance plan for the next one to
three years.
Hearing no one in the audience wishing
to address the subject item, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Council Member
Strauss to authorize the City Manager to
submit s three year and one year Housing
Assistance Plan (HAP) to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as required, to
receive the next three years of
Community Development Block Grant Funds.
Volume 42 - Page 470
HAP /HUD
1988 -91
(87)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
y �
•
Motion
All Ayes
•
ix
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
E. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The following actions were taken as
indicated, except for those items removed.
1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION:
Pass to second reading on November 14,
1988 -
(a) Removed from the Consent Calendar.
(b) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -41,
being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH AMENDING NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.41
PERTAINING TO NONCOMMERCIAL
SOLICITATIONS. [Report from
Assistant City Attorney]
(c) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -42,
being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH AMENDING NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
12.52.050 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE TO DESIGNATE
THE PORTION OF THE OCEAN FRONT
ALLEY BETWEEN M STREET AND
CHANNEL ROAD AS ONE -WAY IN THE
EASTERLY DIRECTION. [Report
from Traffic Affairs
Committee]
Schedule for public hearing on
November 14, 1988 -
(d) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -43,
being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
SO AS TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
REVISING THE DEFINITION OF THE
TERM "DWELLING UNIT" (PLANNING
COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 671).
[Report from the Planning
Department]
Volume 42 - Page 471
Ord 88 -41
Bus Lic
Noncmcl
Solicitation
(27)
Ord 88 -42
Vehicles/
Trfc
(85)
Ord 88 -43
Dwelling Unt
PCA 671
(94)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
�G,p2 �G
ROLL CALL
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
2. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION:
(a) Resolution No. 88 -102 modifying the
existing parking restrictions on
certain streets in the vicinity of
Newport Harbor High School and
rescinding Resolution No. 88 -15.
(Report from Traffic Affairs
Committee)
(b) Resolution No. 88 -103 extending the
term of the Council Ad Hoc Airport
Committee.
(c) Resolution No. 88 -104 approving the
application for Grant Funds for the
Per Capita Grant Program under the
California Wildlife, Coastal, and
Park Land Conservation Act of 1988
for vilest Newport Community Center
Refurbishment. (Report from Parks,
Beaches and Recreation Director)
3. CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS:
(a) Removed from the Consent Calendar.
(b) Award Contract No. 2574 to Devcon
Enterprises, Inc., for the total
price of $307,337, for BAYSHORES
SCREEN WALL; and authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute
subject contract. (Report from
Public Works Department)
4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as
indicated:
Rstrctns/
Res 88 -102
(63)
Ad Hoc Arprt
Cmte
Res 88 -103
(24)
PB &R /WNpt
Cmnty Ctr
Res 88 -104
(62)
Screen Wall
C -2574
(38)
(a) To Traffic Affairs Committee for TAC
consideration, letters from Debra (85)
Miller and Mrs. Carol Senour,
regarding the traffic congestion
and stronger traffic control
regarding speed on the Peninsula.
(b) Removed from the Consent Calendar.
5. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the
City Clerk for inclusion in the records:
(a) Letter from FISH - HARBOR AREA,
INC., expressing thanks for the
City's contribution of $1,600 to
their organization.
6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For denial and
confirmation of the City Clerk's
referral to the claims adjuster:
Volume 42 - Page 472
(36)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
(a) William L. Calhoun alleging
personal injuries as a result of
fall on "mossy" sidewalk caused by
slippery surface due to sprinklers
on 1540 Jamboree Road (in front of
Sterling Motors) on September 2,
1988.
(b) Chubb Group of Insurance Companies Chubb Grp/
for :Michael T. Ray alleging damage Ray
to personal property as a result of
sewer backup at 408 Hazel Avenue on
August 11, 1988.
(c), Larry Gravatt alleging wrongful
arrest, false imprisonment, etc.,
at intersection of 39th Street and
Seashore Drive on July 4, 1988.
(d) David R. Guzman alleging damage to
vehicle, as a result of tree
falling onto it on Orchid Avenue,
Corona del Mar, on July 12, 1988.
(e) Terry Harris alleging injuries
sustained while riding his bicycle
and running over cable television
box approximately 4" lower than
bicycle route surface grade on east
side of Irvine Avenue, north of
22nd Street, on August 8, 1988.
(f) Ray H. Johnson alleging that
excessive methane gas emanating
from subsurface of property caused
loss of reasonable rental value of
property at 2441 Marino Drive.
(g) Janet Kane alleging her parked
vehicle was hit by City truck in
parking lot at 2229 East Pacific
Coast Highway on September 13,
1988.
(h) Ricky Miller alleging City Police
Department invaded his private
property at 1200 Esplanade, Redondo
Beach, on August 8. 1988, causing
him emotional distress, etc.
(i) State Farm Insurance Company for
Thompson Parrett, alleging
claimant's vehicle was hit by City
vehicle at W. Balboa and 15th
Street, on May 2, 1988.
7. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS - For denial and
confirmation of the City Clerk's
referral to the claims adjuster:
None.
Volume 42 - Page 473
7
Farm/
COUNCIL MEMI
S c'
G�2 (�A �f
.A
•
C
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 19138
8. REQUEST TO APPROVE /FILL PERSONNEL
VACANCIES: (Report from the City
Manager)
0
i[9
(a) One Parking Control Officer,
Traffic Division.
(b) One Account Clerk, Purchasing
Division.
(c) One Field Operations
Superintendent, Field Maintenance
Division.
(d) One Librarian, Newport Center
Library.
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS -
For Council information and approval:
(a) Report from the Traffic Affairs
Committee recommending ELIMINATION
OF PARKING ON THE SOUTH (OCEAN)
SIDE OF SEASHORE DRIVE, from Orange
Street to the west end of Seashore
Drive at Summit Street.
For Council information and filing:
(b) Report from HARBOR QUALITY
CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE
regarding citizen reports of
suspected illegal vessel waste
discharges into Newport Bay.
(c) Removed from the Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING:
None.
(66)
Trfc/
SeashrDr
SouthSide/
Pkg elmntn
(85)
Harbor Qlty
CAC
(24)
11. CHANNEL PARK RESTROOM CONSTRUCTION AND Channel Prk
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS /CONTRACT NO. 2664 - Rstrm Cnstr
Affirm the Negative Declaration of C -2664
Environmental Impact for the restroom (38)
and other improvements in Channel Park.
(Report from Public Works Department)
12. COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY /CONTRACT N0. 910 - County Dock
Authorize the City Manager to sign right Prpty
of entry permit for storm drain easement C -910
across the City. (Report from Public (38)
Works Department)
13. AMENDMENT NO. 604 - Accept the public PCA 604
improvements constructed in conjunction (94)
with Amendment No. 604 (1400 Dove
Street, in the Newport Place Planned
Community); and authorize the City Clerk
Volume 42 - Page 474
COUNCIL MEMBERS
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
to release the Faithful Performance
Surety and Labor and Materials Surety in
the form of a cash deposit (Receipt No.
03341 accepted by the City on April 5,
1988, into Account No. 02- 217 -02).
(Report from Public Works Department)
14. 1988 -89 STREET RESURFACING
PROGRAM /CONTRACT NO. 2708 - Approve the
plans and specifications; and authorize
the City Clerk to advertise for bids to
be opened at 11:00 a.m., November 17,
1988. (Report from Public Works
Department)
15. CARNATION COVE REPORT - Approve the
following recommendations as set forth
in the staff report: remove concrete
debris from below the street and
bulkhead; construct a wood railing
across the street end; propose a
cooperative project with the City and
the Carnation Coves Homeowners
Association to dredge sand on the Beach
at Carnation Coves; provide $45,000
($11,250 City and $33,750 Carnation
Coves Association) in 1989 -90 Budget;
direct staff to prepare a cooperative
agreement with the Carnation Coves
Association and /or property owners to
implement the project; direct staff to
pursue preparation of plans and
specifications for project; direct staff
to obtain permits for the project; City
participation in this project is not to
be considered a precedent for any
potential future projects; and City
participation in this project does not
imply any City responsibility for the
existing private bulkheads. (Report
from Public Works Department)
16. REMODEL LIFEGUARD HEADQUARTERS AND
CONSTRUCT NEW RESTROOM AT NEWPORT
PIER /CONTRACT NO. 2721 - Approve the
plans and. specifications; and authorize
the City Clerk to advertise for bids to
be opened at 11:00 a.m., November 30,
1988. (Report from Public Works
Department)
17. HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION 259 -196 -
Uphold staff's recommendation to approve
the application of BRUCE BEVAN to revise
the residential float bayward of 106
South Bayfront, subject to conditions
listed in the staff report. (Report
from Tidelands Affairs Committee)
Volume 42 - Page 475
88/89 St
srfcg Prg
(38)
feguard HQ
New Rstrm
t Pier
(38)
(51)
Perm
COUNCIL MEMBERS
y �
0
C
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
18. SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS - Uphold staff's Permits/
recommendation for approval, subject to Spcl Evnts
conditions listed in the staff report (65)
from the Business License Supervisor for
the following:
(a) Application #88 -334 - Apli #88 -334
Temporary street closure on
Sunday, November 20 from 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 a.m., at Newport
Center for UCI Medical Center
5K and 10K Runs; and
(b) Application #88 -392 - Public Apli #88 -392
fireworks display on Friday,
October 28 from 8:30 p.m. to
9:00 p.m., at Davidson Field
for Costa Mesa High School
half time homecoming football
game.
19. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE EQ /CAC
VACANCY - Accept with regret, the (24)
resignation of Helen A. Anderson from
the subject committee, and direct City
Clerk to post vacancy notice.
20. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: (25)
BA -030 - $1,300 Increase in Budget
Appropriations and Revenue Estimates for
purchase of stereo system for the Grant
Howald Community Youth Center Game Room;
Parks, Beaches and Recreation - Self
Supporting Fund. (Report from Parks, PB &R
Beaches and Recreation Director) (62)
G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Statement and signed petitions (on file Aviation
with the City Clerk) from permanent Cmte
residents and part time residents, for (24)
the immediate relief from the current
John Wayne Airport takeoff pattern
circulated by the Coalition of
Homeowners and Newport citizens
of Eastbl.uff, Balboa Island, and
Peninsula Point coordinated by Mimi
Singleton, were presented.
Council Member Maurer stated that a
representative was in the audience
regarding; the petition from residents in
the Balboa Island, Peninsula Point and
Eastbluff: communities, and introduced
Mimi Singleton.
Volume 42 - Page 476
COUNCIL MEMBERS
I of 9
I'
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWP ORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
Mimi Singleton, 315 Sapphire, Balboa
Island, and Chairperson for Citizens for
Air Route Equity, addressed the Council,
stating that the purpose of their
petition is for immediate relief from
the current John Wayne Airport takeoff
pattern. She added that the people
living under the John Wayne Airport
route path have been bearing the entire
burden of the turn and takeoff pattern
for 14 years. Also, she stated the
petition presented includes thousands of
signers from Eastbluff, Park Newport,
Promontory Point, Bayside, Balboa
Island, Peninsula Point, Irvine Terrace
and Sea Island.
Ms. Singleton stated that their
organization is forced to bring the
petitions to the City Council because
they have not been unable to get, what
the residents consider, fair
representation on the Newport Aviation
Committee,, adding that there is unequal
representation, but that the areas of
east, west:, upper and lower portions of
the Bay are fully represented.
Dan Stringer, 700 South Bay Front,
Balboa Island, President of the Balboa
Island Improvement Assocation, addressed
the Council, stating that this petition
is still being circulated and the
problem is the concern of many people.
He added that they are appreciative of
the Aviation Committee's fine
presentation at one of their recent
meetings and the effort being put forth
in powering up the thrust over the
ocean, as well as doing the computer
model studies for higher altitude take
offs. He commented that both Dave
Twitchell, who is the outgoing
President of their association, and he
considers this issue of the air route
traffic over the island and over the
other affected areas, to be the most
important issue, and their association
gives their full backing to the Citizens
for Air Route Equity.
Mr. Stringer continued that the
arguments they get seem logical coming
from the staff and the Aviation
Committee about the second turns being
unsafe, etc., and the decibel readings
being equal, but this doesn't lessen the
burden on the island.
Volume 42 — Page 477
Aviation
Cmte
COUNCIL MEMI
� ti 4p�
0
r�
L
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 19138
Bill Wren, Balboa Peninsula Point
Association, addressed the Council,
stating the petition that was circulated
on the Peninsula had excellent response,
and the message is, let's study this
problem, but in a rational manner. He
also stated that they do feel the
representation that their association
has is inadequate with only an alternate
for their area on the Aviation.
Willis Longyear, Chairman of the Airport
Committee for Lido Isle Community
Association, addressed the Council and
stated that, while he is very
sympathetic with the people on Balboa
Island, he would be similarly upset if
the flight: path was moved to affect
their area. He also stated that if the
route was moved to straighten it out,
all of Backbay on the left side would
get more noise than Balboa Island now
does, as it would be travelling over a
much higher density, and they would just
be moving the route over to somebody
else. He further stated that he would
like to pursue matters like changing the
flight profile, as the City is now
considering, and working with Balboa
Island to support the City's effort to
seek alternate sites for the airport.
Rhea Dorn,, 1116 Dolphin Terrace, Irvine
Terrace, addressed the Council stating
that her family has lived there for over
23 years, and have experienced the
changes and affects from the airport.
She commented that she can count the
passengers in the planes that go over
her house„ and they don't need an alarm
clock anymore. She added that if Balboa
Island is impacted, Irvine Terrace,
which is much closer to the airplanes,
is most affected by the flight route.
Further, she stated that they are
grateful that the people on the Island
have taken the initiative to help all of
them, and hope the Council will consider
giving equal representation so that
solutions can be found for the entire
City.
Council Member Cox commented that the
Aviation Committee has worked long and
hard, and they welcome everybody's
participation in trying to address this
issue to solve the problem. He added
that the :suggestion this is a weighted
Committee, in his view and experience,
Volume 42 — Page 478
Aviation
Cmte
COUNCIL MEMBERS
�A
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
is untrue. He further stated that there Aviation
have been instances when they could not Cmte
get people: to serve on the committee and
get involved in the process, but the
Aviation Committee is dedicated to
finding a solution to this problem.
Council Member Maurer stated that he was
sorry to hear that this problem would
pit one community against another, but
he remembers when the City first signed
the Airport Agreement, he and his wife
felt that the noise was not really as
bad as it had been. But he added, that
at the beginning of this summer, his
wife expressed that the noise has become
much worse:. He requested the City's
Airport Liaison, Ken Delino, to go over
the reports of the sounds to see if this
has not irLereased this last summer, and
report this information to the
residents.
Ken Delino, Executive Assistant to the
City Manager, and Airport Liaison,
stated thELt the Aviation Committee
acknowledges Council Member Maurer's
comments, and added that the Committee
now has the authorization to hire an
acoustical. consulting firm, which will
be looking at the three main types of
aircraft, the depth, profiles and flight
tracks, departure characteristics, and
establishing a base case on what is
happening now, and where they are making
that noise. He added that the Committee
is aware of the problem, and will make
firm recommendations to the City
Council, and then go to the FAA and the
Orange County Airport.
Council Member Turner commented that
information regarding the delayed thrust
program had been requested from the
County about a year ago, and the County
has requested approval from the FAA, but
no response has come forth from the FAA,
as yet. lie referred to the
representation on the Aviation
Committee, and the fact that some years
ago, it was apparent that other areas of
the City did not seem as concerned about
the airport noise, as well as members of
the then City Council, and it took a
long time for those people to realize
the type of ramifications the airport
noise had on the entire community. He
further stated that the modeling program
discussed by Ken Delino gives the
Committee something to use and see if
Volume 42 - Page 479
COUNCIL MEMBERS
ti
•
Motion
All Ayes
•
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
flight paths can be shifted. He feels
that the airport noise is worse in his
area also. Further, he is pleased to
hear that the Balboa Island Community
Association and Lido Isle Community
Association are committed to look for an
alternate airport site, which is a vital
part of the solution.
Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa
Mesa, addressed the Council, suggesting
that the airport be put in the desert,
and sufficient land zoned around it so
that there will never be any homes
underneath the flight path, and use
smaller aircraft that would go from John
Wayne Airport to the desert, so that the
impact on the community would be
quieter.
Mimi Singleton addressed the Council
again, reading from a letter written by
Marguerite Wolcott, Airport Liaison for
the North Bluff Bayview Community
Association, to Council Member Strauss,
requesting a change in the makeup of the
Aviation Committee, that Randolph
Kroenert be changed back to alternate,
since there is already a voting
representative from Lido Isle, and Dan
Gilliland be given voting membership for
the Peninsula Point area of Newport
Beach for better service to the
community.
Motion was made by Council Member Turner
to refer the subject petitions to the
Aviation Committee for consideration.
Aviation
Cmte
2. Report to the City Manager regarding Planning
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION (68)
ON OCTOBER 6, 1988; and AGENDA FOR
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR
OCTOBER 20, 1988, was presented.
Council Member Strauss made a motion to
schedule Variance 1145 for City Council
review, stating the project has some
important considerations, such as more
than 2 x buildable and setback problem,
but after explanation from the Planning
Director and comments from Council
Member Plummer, he withdrew his motion.
Volume 42 - Page 480
COUNCIL MEMBERS
CIO; aNq
A N4
.,
Os"?�o
•
Motion
Ayes x
Noes x x x
Motion
All Ayes
11
J
Motion
All Ayes
•
X
X
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
X
x x
x
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
The Planning Director commented on the Planning
Planning Commission agenda of
October 20,1988, and summarized, for the
Council, agenda item numbers 3, 4, 5, 9,
10, and 11.
Council Member Strauss made a motion to
schedule public hearing on
November 14, 1988, Site Plan Review No.
46, 3841 Ocean Birch Drive.
After summary from the Planning
Director of Site Plan Review No. 46, at
the request of Council, the motion was
voted on, and FAILED.
Motion was made to approve the actions
taken by the Planning Commission on
October 6, 1988, and agenda for the
regular Planning Commission meeting of
October 20, 1988.
3. Report from the City Attorney Npt Dunes
recommending approval of Amendments to Stlmt Agm
the Newport Dunes Settlement Agreement -2394)
Contract No. 2394; and authorize the (38)
Mayor and City Clerk to execute said
amendments, was presented.
The City Attorney stated that the County
has requested that a change be made to
the Settlement Agreement to substitute
the Director of Harbors, Beaches and
Parks of EMA for the Director of EMA,
but that change does not appear in the
document that came to the Council.
Also, he stated that there are two
changes that he is proposing to make: 1)
specifies that no building on the site
shall exceed three stories, which is
consistent with what the Council desires
for that site, but is not in the
agreement; and 2) conditions would
require the family unit to be
constructed with pitched roofs so that
the City would take full benefit of the
38.5 foot height limit.
Motion was made by Council Member Hart
to approve the suggested action, as
recommended by the City Attorney in the
foregoing.
Volume 42 - Page 481
COUNCIL
•
Motion
All Ayes
•
0
,5-
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
4. Recycled reports from the Assistant City
Commercial
Attorney dated October 10, 1988 and
Handbill
Business License Supervisor, and updated
Distrb
memorandum from the Business License
(27)
Supervisor of October 24, 1988, were
presented regarding the proposed
ordinance regulating commercial handbill
distribution.
Judith Martin, P.O. Box 25842, Santa
Ana, and Southern California Legislative
Chairperson for the American Advertising
Federation, addressed the Council
referring to a "misleading" article in
the Register newspaper last week which
said that the City announced that
newspapers; could not be put on the
driveways anymore. She stated that
after talking to Glen Everroad, Business
License Supervisor, she realized that
this was not the Council's intent, but
that the City was having particular
problems with handbills that had been
taped or staplegunned to people's homes,
etc. She added that they still are a
little confused with the issue, because
the proposed ordinance talks about
commercial handbills, and requested that
some wording be inserted in the proposed
ordinance to the effect that this does
not include newspapers, normal
pennysaver -type shoppers, thereby not
restricting normal, legitimate
newspaper--type operations.
The City Attorney stated that the
definition of commercial handbill
excludes normal newspapers, and he will
check on the pennysaver, to see how this
fits in with the proposed ordinance, and
suggested Ms. Martin call his office
tomorrow to further address her concerns.
Discussion ensued, wherein, Mayor Pro
Tem Hart made a motion to introduce and
pass to second reading on November 14,
1988,
Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -40, IOrd 88 -40
being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH AMENDING NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
5.40.040 PERTAINING TO
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL
HANDBILLS ON PRIVATE PREMISES.
Volume 42 - Page 482
COUNCIL MEME
n\
\AA\\A �t
>Motion
All Ayes
•
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
40 1 Ayes
Ix
Ix
Ix
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
H. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION:
1. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -36, being,
88 -36
State
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Aid/
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING (70)
SECTION 2.36.010 OF THE NEWPORT
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
STATE AID FOR TRAINING - ADHERENCE
TO STANDARDS,
was presented for second reading with
recycled report from Assistant City
Attorney and Police Administrative
Division Commander, dated October 10,
1988.
Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No.
88 -36.
2. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -37, being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Pera
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mari
ESTABLISHING SECTION 5.18 OF THE (27)
NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO MARINE SPECIAL EVENT
PERMITS,
was presented for second reading with
updated report from Business License
Supervisor, and recycled report from
Business License Supervisor, dated
October 10, 1988.
Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No.
88 -37.
3. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -38, being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING
SECTION 12.66.081 TO THE NEWPORT
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR
APPLICATION OF VEHICLE CODE TO
PRIVATE STREETS IN THE POINT DEL
MAR DEVELOPMENT,
was presented for second reading with
recycled report from Public
Works /Traffic Engineering Department,
dated October 10, 1988.
Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No.
88 -38.
Volume 42 - Page 483
88 -37
Evnts
88 -38
Craffic
?t. Del Mar
(85)
COUNCIL MEME
•
I1
u
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
I. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
Status report from the Planning
Department: regarding SCAG REGIONAL
STRATEGIC PLAN AND DRAFT 1988 AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN, was presented.
The Executive Assistant to the City
Manager, stated that the Planning
Department: has done a wonderful job in
condensing some 800 pages down to 28
pages of the subject report, and
referred to pages 23 -28, which contains
44 separate "mandates." He added that
these "mandates" should not be absolute,
but rather allow municipal organizations
to choose from this list and apply them
to a particular situation, and
recommended that the comments prepared
by staff be approved for transmittal to
the SCAQMD.
Mayor Pro Tem Hart stated that the City
Council should try to take a little more
control of the City's destiny when it
comes to air quality, because we have
the worst air basin in the United
States, and suggested that the letter be
modified, and wording changed in
paragraph one of the letter to show that
the City is interested in some kind of
compliance. She added that she thinks
the City did a wonderful review.
Craig Bluell, Senior Planner, in
response to Council inquiry, stated that
there really are two documents; the
AQMP which has a control measure in it
that has to do with the management of
growth; and a SCAG document, which is
separate from the AQMP called
"Transportation Land Use and Energy
Conservation Measures," to which the
proposed letter is directed. He stated
that this is the document that has
staff concerned of what SCAG's proposed
growth management is within the region,
and the control measures that are being
"mandated" on local jurisdictions. He
added that the AQMP, per se, deals
extensively with stationary sources,
tailpipe emissions, etc., and does not
get into the growth management
measures.
Volume 42 - Page 484
(68)
Regnl
gc Pln/
'88
COUNCIL MEMI
y n\
JG,Ayr�G�4P� �t
oAI 1 Or% ,
Motion
All Ayes
•
•
Motion
All Ayes
•
x
X
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
Discussion ensued, wherein motion was
made to direct the City Manager to
forward the attached comments regarding
the 1988 Air Quality Management Plan,
and confirm additional wording regarding
the City's support of the overall
achievements of air quality standards,
but that the City has some concerns
about SCAC's Regional Planning.
J. CURRENT BUSINESS:
1. Report from the City Manager regarding EQA /CAC
MODIFICATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE (24)
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS CITIZENS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, was presentsd.
The Executive Assistant to the City
Manager, stated that from the Study
Session meeting on the Environmental
Quality Affairs Committee they asked to
have two additional functions: 1)
provide communication access workshops;
and 2) review Environmental Impact
Reports.
The City Attorney satisfied the
Council's concern regarding the
Committee being in a position to
evaluate the environmental documents,
and stated he has worked with the
Planning staff regarding the language in
the proposed resolution, which gives the
Committee an opportunity to review the
EIR's.
Motion was, made to adopt Resolution No. I Res 88 -105
88 -105 reflecting the additional
functions.
2. ENCROACHMENT APPLICATION of D. KROTEE Permit/
AND J. LOMBARDO - to construct 4.5 foot Encrchm
high fence:, gate, bollards, theme Krotee
mailbox and nonstandard pavement in the (65)
public right -of -way adjacent to 2916
Clay Street, was presented.
Report from the Public Works Department,
was presented.
The Executive Assistant to the City
Manager directed Council's attention to
the the staff report and the
attachments, stating that staff is
recommending denial because of the extra
height and from the perception that this
is now private property, rather than
public property.
Volume 42 - Page 485
COUNCIL MEMBERS
y c
�G��F`G�� o� 9G
tan, , nu , 9 9 \� �
0
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 19138
Don Krotee, applicant, addressed the
Council stating that he has lived in the
subject house for three years, with his
family, and added that he is an
architect in Santa Ana, and has a great
interest An historic buildings. He
added that the focus of his business is
restoration and rehab, along with
commercial and residential, and he has
found a "labor of love" in his home. He
further added that his house is probably
one of the last Victorians in Newport
Beach, and maybe the only true Victorian
in Newport Heights. Also, he stated
that in tracing the heritage of the
house, his father and he have found that
during the time it was traded from the
land grant: to Irvine, it was the sheep
ranchers' and farmers' house that was
the Old Heights originally, and sometime
during the 50's and 60's the land around
it was sold off, and now there is a 25
ft. high hedge, between the house and
the neighbors, and no front lawn. He
stated that the proposal before the
Council is to create an "Old Victorian
Courtyard„" and the only way to
accomplish this is to establish two
small areas, one off the deck and one in
the front yard, but a piece of this
would be in the public right -of -way, and
presented some photographs and
illustrations for Council's
consideration to aid them in making a
decision.
In answer to Council inquiry, Mr.
Krotee, explained that the full
encroachment which was 8 feet, is now
cut in half to 4 feet by the revision,
and by moving the bollards back he also
moved the patio and the light standard,
and the light standard will be presented
to Council at a later date for
consideration. He added that the patio
and bollards, which is the issue this
evening, has been moved back half the
distance of its original intrusion, and
it is a very "lacey" treatment, but
merely 12 inches over the standard. He
further stated that, in talking with the
staff, he has found that there has been
some precedent for granting such
encroachments if they can go back into
the.three to five foot area.
Volume 42 - Page 486
Permit/
Encrchm
Krotee
COUNCIL MEMBERS
y �
ROLL CALL
Motion x
All Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
I*
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 24, 1988
Discussion ensued regarding the
historical value of the home, and
considering the unique layout of the
property, motion was made to approve the
application subject to the following:
(a) execution of an agreement for
nonstandard improvements; (b) an
encroachment permit from the Public
Works Department; (c) building permit
from the :Building Department; and (d)
the setback being 8 feet from the curb,
as based on the modified plan submitted
by the applicant.
3. Report from the City Manager concerning
the AD HOC AVIATION COMMITTEE, was
presented.
The Executive Assistant to the City
Manager reviewed the fact that the
difference: is that the City has four
representatives for the homeowners
associations on the Aviation Committee,
and the issue is whether to have two or
four alternates to those members.
X Discussion ensued, wherein motion was
made to approve Resolution No. 88 -106,
extending the term of and consolidating
previous resolutions concerning the Ad
Hoc Aviation Committee with paragraph 5
modified to delete the last three words,
"when deemed appropriate."
Meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
The agenda for this meeting
was posted on October 20,
1988, at 8:30 a.m., on the
City Hall Bulletin Board
located outside of the City of
FQ RNj l
Volume 42 - Page 487
Aviation
Cmte
(24)
Res 88 -106