HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA1140Al?I,,\.NNING DEPAR'mENT ..
3300 Newport Boulevard
PO O.Box 1768
N~~rt Beach.CA 92658-8915
(114 i .644-3200
•'VAAIAN'<::EAP\'L1t~T!~
,CITY OF NEWPORT
.llpplicant (print)BANZUELO/RIERSON!OUFF to Assoc ••Inc .phone (714)777-061;6
4501 E..l.A PAl.MA AVE..SU,TE 202,ANAHEIN,CA 92807-1907
Y M C A (7l41 642-9990
92660
,-,,.
icaiess of Property thv81ved 2300 UNIVERSITY DRIVE,NEWPORTBEACH
<PI1rr>Qse of lIpplicdti=i(describc full}')ALLOW AN INCREASE HEIGHT OF 4'hGOVETHE
.·.PREVroUS HEIGHT RESTRICTION.
ZOne R-1 Pre~nt U~e Y M C A AfHLETIC FACILITY
--------------
,~lEiAnACHf6ance necesSary to preserve property riqht""",_
~l agent n~ysign fr~the owner "written authorIzation from the
record owner is filed with the "pacation.
________.......................__~..R ._..•_
---------~-----------------------------~---------_.._--------------------------------~
00 NOT COMPLETE APPLICATiON BELOWTHIS LINE
~frJ
'4f/~
3/'1
1'.C.Action (S~'~l!:~'",._._
Appeal __._.__C.
fl""ring Date,.L.:::."""""_
Date_"--'-""'--e:.-<-_
C.lIearing,_
C.C.Actio"--._Date
••
~~AlICE PLANNING DIVISION
lLPUilLIC \lORKS DEPARTMENT
lLTRAFFIC ENGINEER
lLFIRE DEPARTMENT
Z_PLMi REVIEW DIVISION
_PARKS &RECREATION
lLPOLICE DEPARTMENT
_MARINE SAFETY
lLGRADING
CITY OF IIElJPORTilEACH
PLtOOlING DEPARTMENT
PLAN REVIEW REQUEST
..1LPLANS ATTACHED (I"l.l'.ASE RETURli)
_PI.llliS ON FILE III !'I..t.mmIGDEPT.
APPLICATION OF:Banzuelo(Rierson/Duff &A.so~iate~,Inc.
FOR:Variance 1140 (Amended)
Regu.est to amond a previQusly approved variance wh..1£~tted tb~
~~~lon of a proposed expansion to the eni§ting Y.H,G,b,facility whl~b
exceeded the 24 foot bAsic height lImit in th~24/28 Foot Height LimitatIon
District.TIt..,proposed atnendmP,cDt involves a request ...t.2...JJpproye a further
~~ase in the height by 4 ft>p.t on portic!.D..L.Q.f.the pr~yiQusly approved
!B!.i.l!llil&.
LOCATION:2300 University Drive
REPORT Rr~UESTED BY:~~
COMMISSION REVIEW:4-13-89
~TS:,_
~s:.'"Thepllt-cel·.ill lOcllte4.t.n'U:·,.lI.l:.mofnJ;kllt'bay..'·.leh 'Is 4$slpated
fer "OOVMIlI«Iti4L.BDIl'CATl(JlW,.,'AD IlIlSTlT1mmw.FACl,L'lTU:>"by bel:h the
Land Use Element and "l'1an"(L.U.E,)of the General PI"",and the Lecal
Coasral Program,tand Use I'1'm (L.C.P.).ThislaItdU8~category permits
uses which are a part of the ·social infrastructure"of the community,and
specificallyall0W",s for ,the ,eXistence of the Y.H.C.A.,The proposed
expansion of this facility is censistent.with these categorieal guidelinas,
and with .tho.are""pedfi~.lar.d use policies.They have ,,_tabU_hed I.l site
development limit of 66,000 +/-square feet,The expansion of the current
15,769 facility falla well within this maximum standard.
03 April 1\189
••
CITY OF NEI1PORT BEACH
PLAmHNG DEPARlHENT
PLAN REVIEW REqUEST
X-ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION
X-PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
lLTRAFFrC ENGINEER
lLFIRE DEPARlHENT
lLPLAN REVIEW DIVISION
PARKS &RECREATION:J'X:::POLlcJ,i?DEP~':.JJ
_MARINE SAFETY
X-GRADING
Da''''.J:larch22.1939
.lLPLAN3 ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURJli
___PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT.
APPLICATION OF:Banzue10/Rierson/Duff &Associates,Inc.
FOR:Variance 1140 (Amended)
Request to Bmend a previouslL approved Stlriance which pemitted t.hi
constructicn of a proposed expansion to th@-IXlsting Y,M,C,A,fociiie;Which
exceeded the 2/1 foot basic height 11ml t in the 24/28 Foot Hdght I.1mit;ti;~
District .~proposed amendmentinvolves 4 request to approve A furth'#r
1.n£.re3.se in the height by ,~feet:Oil portion"of the previous]y approvt!J!lliill.1n&'
LOCATION:2300 University Drive
REPORT REqUESTED BY:4-3-89
COMMISSION REVIEW:4-13-89
COMMENTS :_...I.;0,-=-,(J~J!'c;:/;f.::"._''-f~--'~~~.:.L.--:,,"",__
CITY OF NEYPORT BEACH
PUNNING DEPARTMENT
PUN REVIEW REQUEST
Z-ADV~~CE PUNNING DIVISION
lLPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.·LTltAWIOI£ll'9I~1!Il
lLFlRE DEPARTMENT
lLPUN REVIEW DIVISION
--PARKS &RECREAYION
lLPOLICE DEPARTMENT
-.JjARINE SAFETY
lLGRADING
Date March 22,1989
-lLPUNS ATTACHED (PI.I'..ASE RETURN)
_PUNS ON
e v v
APPLICATION OF:BanzuelojRierson/Duff &Associates,
FOR:Variance 1140 (Amended)
constrqction 2f a proposed expansion
v n
exceeded the 24 ~basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Hel;ht Li;it:ti~~
District.The proposed amendment f.nvolvps a request to Approve a further
increase in the hei&ht by 4 feet on port!ons of the previou31y approvedbuilding,
LOCATION:2300 University Drive
REPORT REQUESTED BY:!l:.l:..~
COMMISSION REVIEW:4.13.89
COMMENTS:_tVo ",J.J.J-~(';m.J.d-~-8J.d ,eg/({;'v M.:
__.....DC&.troUt
CITY OF NEII1'ORTBEACH
PU.NNING DEPARTI4EN!
PUN REVIEl/'REQUEST
~j\~VANCE PLANNING DIVISION
~)J1U:C~D~ARnfllN'l'
lLTRAFFIC ENGlNEER
lLnRE DEPARTMENT
K-PUN REVIZW DIVISION
_PARKS &RECREATION
lLrOLICE DEPARTMENT
.JIARINE SAFETY
lLGMOING
Datt'.Ji.Il1;ch220illJ!.
-lL,PUNS ATTACHED (PLPASE RETURN)
___PUNS ON FILE IN PlANNING DEPT.
APPLICATION OF:Banzuelo/Rierson/Duff &Associates,Inc.
FOR:Varhnce 1140 (Amended)
Request to amend 8 previously appro;e~v:;~:~;~~£~~QI.mitted the
cOnstruction of a proposed expansIon to h ex v b/~J(o~o~+~.fqcility which
exceeded the 24 foot basic height l~~~~4~~~~)t I,imitation
District 0 The proposed amendment Iv s ..rg~,,~t h rJllfJLa furthrl::
increase in the hflight by 4 feet on!iortions he preYlously approvedbuilding.
LOCATION:2300 University Drive
REPORT REqUESTED BY:4-3-89
COMMISSION REVIEl/':4-13-89
COMMENTS:
K-ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION
lLPUBLIC loIOtU<S DEPARTMENT
"»~~~.'~.'"":'".'.Xl)'.''....",
lLl'LAN REVIEIl DIVIS ION
JARKS &RECREATION
lLPOLICE DEPARnmIT
--.MARINE SAFETY
lLGRADlNG
Date Hun"22,1989
CITY OF lIEIIl'OII.TBEACH
PLANNING DEPARThEIlT
PLAN REVIEIl REQUEST
...lLPLANSATTACHED (PLFAIlII:RETURN)
,_PLANS ON FILE IN PLANUING DEPT.
APPLICATION OF:Banzue1o/Rierson/Duff &Associates,Inc.
FOR:Variance 1140 (Amended)
Request to amend A previously approved ypr'ance which fimrmitted~
construction of a proposed expension to the existin£X.H.C,A.facility which
exceeded the 24 foot badc height 11mlt in the 24728 ~::,:mi:g:~District,The proposed amendmentinvolves a ra....n;e;Jt,
LOCATION:2300 University Drive
REPORT REQUESTED BX:4-3-89
COHHISSION REVIEIl:4-13-89
COIlMENTS:.'.•r:;....~,'_.,_
CiTY OF NEIlPOIl.TBEACH
PlA.'1NINGDEPARTMENT
PIAN REVIEW REQUEST
lL,ADVANCE l'UllIiINGDIVISION
li_PUBLlC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1LTRAFFIC ENGXNEER
1LFiRE DEPAR'IHEllT
'i~'~!i_~$t~(.·.
_PARKS &RECREATION
1LPOLlCE DU ...li.'IHEllT
-.llARINE SAFETY
1LGRADING
Da~e~Gh 22.1989
..lLPIANS ATTACHED (PLEASR KETUlW)
_PlANS ON FILE IN PIANNIIW DEI'T.
FOR:Variance 1140 (Amended)
APPLICATION OF:Banzuel~/Rierson/Duff &Associates,Inc.
&eguest to amend a preYiouply approve?ygriAnc,wbichP'rmitt'd the
yonstruction of a proposed expaoslo&~q the exisClne Y,M.C,A.££cility ybieb
exceeded the 24 foot basic heieht 1 irek io the 24128 fPot HeiMe UmitAt:ion
pistrict.The Bhoposed amendment iovolves a ~eouest t~:e!~:;ta ~~increase iO the height by 4 feet pn pprtipns 2i the r y II V dbUildioe·
LOCATION:2300 University Drive
REPORT R.EQUESTED 1lY:4-3-89
COMMISSION REVIEW:4.13.89
COMIIENTS:__--""'""'...,..."""'~.............-"-_
lLADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION
XJ1]IlLIC WORKS DEPARntENT
lLTRAFFIC EtlGINEER
lLFIRE DEPARTMENT
lLPLAN ~JIEW DIVISION
_PARKS &RECREATION
lLPQLI<::EDEPARTlmlT
'1!~iA~~~ETY
Dat~_Harch 22.1:89
CITY OF HElIPORT IlEAIAI
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLAN REVIEW REQUEST
-lLPLANS ATTACHED (PLf'ASE >l.ETUIlN)
___PLANS ON FILE IN PI~ING DY.PT.
APPLICATION OF:llanzuelo/Rierson/Duff &Associates,Inc.
FOR:Variance 1140 (Aaended)
Request to 4mcnd a preyiouslv approved variance which p,rgLttad the
k2D1.tructiou of a proposed oXRAnSlon to the existing Y,M.e A,facility whiCh
exceeded the 24 foot basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Hel¢bt LimicAt12n
District.The proposed _Dyment f,Dvolves ft request to approve a further.
increase in the height by 4 feet on portions of the preylously ADprOV;dbuilding.
LDCATION:2300 University Drive
REPORT REqUESTED IlY:4-3-a2,
COHKISSION REVIEW:4·13-89
COIiHEIlTS:a yeu:L.~
CHECK UST FOR APPUCATIONS
.us 1'12
c1'0 Propeny owners'list on gummed labels
~0 Radius map
~0 Plans -dimensioned,and to scale
0 [3 Environmental document required?
0 ~Resubdivision or tract map required?
(Building to be constructed over a common property line?)
0 B Modification(s)to the Zoning Code required?
D ~Traffic Study required?
D ~Coastal Residential Development Permit required?
D (3 Affordable housing (non-coastal)required?
D ~Letter from the applicant with details of tlte project?
Received by:~-
Dat~:3",--"_'~L..-_
Application No.__-,-_
••
WHAT EXCEPTIONAL CIRCIJISTAJICES APPLY TO THE BUILDING,PROPERTY OR USE?
PER THE CONDITIONS ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1983,THE Y.M.C.A.
AGREED TO SINK THE BUILDING THIRTY-TWO INCHES IN-ORDER TO PLEASE A FEW
RESIDENTS IN THE ARE~.THIS NEGATIVELY IMPACTED THE Y.M.C.A.BUDGETAPPROXI~ATELY $40.000.00.
AT THAT TIME THE RESIDENTS.AS SURMIZED BY THE Y .M.C.A.;FELT IHllMlDATEO BY
THE ROOF-TOP RUNNING TRACK.AS OUR PLANS CLEARLY SHOWN.THE ROOF-iOP RUNNINC
TRACK HAS BEEN TOTALLY ELIMINATED AND WILL NOT BE BUILT AT A LATER DATE.THE
ROOF STRUCTURE AS DESIGNED WOULD NOT STRUCTURALLY ACCO~~DATE A RUNNING TRACK
AND THE LEGAL EXITS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED:THEREFORE WE BELIEVE THE ROOF-TOP
RUNNING TRACK WILL NEVER BE BUILT.THE FEAR RESIDENTS MAY HAVE ABOUT
STRANGERS INVADING THEIR VISUAL PRIVACY AND NIGHT-TIME ILLUMINATION AND NOiSEHASBEENELIMINATED.
ALSO,THE ACTIVITIES IN THIS FACILITY ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE ON THE
SURROUNDING R-I PROPERTIES.THE Y.M.C.A.OFFERS BOTH ATHLETIC A~TIVITIES AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES.THe:SYSTEMS TO SERVE THOSE ACTIVITIES CAN BE
OF A DIFFEREIH MAGNITUDE THAN THOSE IN TIlE ADJACENT STRUCTURES.
THE Y.M.C.A.REQUIRES A MINIMur1 25'CLEAR HEIGHT IN THE GYM AND GYMNASTICS
ROOMS IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR INTERNATION OLYMPIC EVENTS SUCH AS BASKETBALL.
VOLLEYBALL AND GYMNASTICS.IN AN INFORr;AL SURVEY BY THE Y.M.C.A ••THERE ARE
NO PRESENT FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THAT QUALIFY BY THE
OLYMPIC CQMIollTTE FOR OLYMPIC USE.THE 25'CLEAR HEIGHT IS THE MINIMUM
STANDARD OF THE SPORTS INTENDED FOR THESE USES.THE Y.M.C.A.ORIGINALLY
WANTED 30'CLEAR BUT RELUCTANTLY REDUCED THE CLEAR HEIGHT TO 25'AS AN
ATTEr4PT TO MAINTAIN GOODWILL WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AT A SACRIFICE TO THEIRSERVICES.
THE ADDITIOIIAL INCREASE OF 4'IS DRASTICALLY REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THE
Y.M.C.A.TO ?ROVIDE THESE SERVICES AND STILL CONFORM TO THE C.U.P.
REQUIREMENT TO SCREEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FROM VIEW.EVERY ATTEMPT HAS BEEN
MADE.I.E.VARYING HEIGHTS OF BUILDING ELEMENTS AND OFFSETS;BUT THE USE OFEQUIPMENTSCREENINGISSTILLNECESSARY.
IIHY WIll PROPOSAL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO lHE NEIGHBORHOOD?
THE Y.M.C.A.SERVES THE HEALTH,RECREATIONAL AND SOCIAL NEEDS OF THE HARBOR
AREA.THE INCREASED BUILDING EFFICIENCY WILL HELP PROVIDE A FACILITY TO MORE
ABLY SERVE THE COMMUNITY.THE NEEDLD HEIGHT INCREASE DOES 1I0T BLOCK ANYADJACENTVIEWSNORSETANYPRECEDENTS.
WHY IS A V4RIANCE NECESSARY TO PRESERVE PROPERTY RIGHTS?
THE BUILOING SYSTEMS,AND IN TURN THE VERY SERVICES PROVIDED 8'(THE Y.M.C.A.
TG THE CO~~UNITY.ARE BEING IMMENSELY AFFECTED BY THE CURRENT BUILDING HEIGHT
LIMITATIONS.THE EFFECTS ARE BOTH FUNCTIONAL AND ECON~~IC.
THE 1.M.C.A.HEIGHT AS ALLOWED BY THE CURRENT C.U.P.DOES 'lOT iJUJCK THE VIEIIS
TO THE BACK BAY ANY MORE THAN IT HAS SINCE 1969 WHEN TliE Y.M.C.A.WAS
ORIGINALLY BUILT.THIS WAS ILLUSTRATED BY A COMPREHENSIVE SLIDE PRESENTATION
TO THE PLANNING COMl4ISION AT TliE 1983 HEARING.IT WAS ALSO IlUJSTRATED AT
TliE Y.M.C.A.SITE TO MEMBERS OF PLANNING STAFF.PLANNIHG COMMISSION AND
RESIDENTS OF SURROUNDIN6 AREA DURING THE 1983 HEARINGS.AN AOOITIONAL HEIGHT
OF 4'.IN OUR OPINION,WOULD NOT EFFECT THE VIEW TO THE BACK BAY AREA ANY1~ORE THAN WHAT IS ALREADY PERMITTED.
THE aEIGHTS REQUESTED BY THIS VARIANCE IS PERMITTED BY THE COASTAL
COfIMISSION.THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND ll~E COMMISSHlN AND THE FEDERALAVIATIONADMiNISTRATION.
THE HEIGHTS REQUESTED BY TlUS VARIANCE WOULD CONoRIBUTE GREATlY TO NOISEREDUCiIONTOSURROUNDINGNEIGHBORHOODS.
NOTICE OF PU8LIC H&ARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning I.:ommissionof the City 01 N~wport Beech lIill
hold a public hearing on the appacation of Banzuelo/Duff "AuolUlltg8 for V8[~
No.1140 IAmende1l-on property located at 2300 University DriyU.
Request to amend a prevlpusly approved variance which perm1tt,d the cODstruction of a
propos,d expansion to th',xisting Y,H,C,A,facility wbi~~8xc~dL~~f:;~~:~~
height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height I\~ion DW:h:i b;t1:~d n t
involves a request to approve a further ~r sse in h ,bt on portions
of the previously approved building,
This project has been reviewed,and it has been det.mllined that it is categorictolly
exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Notice io hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the l1tb day
of April 1989,at the hour of lL2Q p,m,in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach
City Hall,3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,California,at which time and place
an)and All persons interested may appear and be heard thereon,If you challenge this
project in court,you may be limited to raising only thoRO iSDues you or someone e12e
raised at the public hearing described in this no.ice or in written correspondence
delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing.For information call (714)644-3200.
Gary J.Di Sano,Secretary,Planning COm3iasion,City of Newport Beach.
Note:The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from theapplicant.
Z-ADVANCE PLANNING DIVI~ION
lL!'UBLIC WORKS DEPARTMEl1T
lLTRAFFIC ~GINEER
lLFIRE DEPARTMENT
lLPLAN REVIEW DIVISION
_PARKS &RECREATION
lLPOLICE DEPARTMENT
-J{ARINE SAFETY
lLCRADING
Date MArch 22.1982
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENl
PLAN REVIEW REQUEST
,jLPLANS ATTACHED (I'LF.A!lERETURN)
_PLANS ON !'ILE IN PlANNING DEPT.
FOR:Variance 1140 (Amended)
APPLICATION OF:Banzue1ojRiersen/Duff &Associates,Inc.
Request t2 amend a previou!l!ly approved variance which permitted the
construction of a prop9sed expansion to the existing X M.C~.facility which
excuded the 24 foot bnsic height 11..i\;in the 24/28 Poot Il;,~t l:m~~;:;:e
District,The proposed amendmentinvolves a request to =r VA .
.Increase in the heigh\;by 4 feet on porUons of the preViousiy ,,;;;;;bulldiDll·
LOCATION:2300 University Drive
COMMENTS:----------~__
REPORT REQUESTED BY:4-3-89
COHMISSION REVIEW:4-1~.89
S vel'(ane .'
.....Newport Beach,CA
.119-252-05
'2300'IJN vers ity Drive .'
.Newport Beach,CA 92660
119-261-08
PETER KALlONZES2904PaperLane
Newport Beach,CA 92660
t19-2!l1-14
R.LEE/J.COLLINGS267-A Termino AvenueLongBeach.CA 90803
119-252-15
SALLY BROWN22B5Golden CircleNewportBeach.CA 92660
119-252-12
THE IRVINE COMPANY550NewportCenter DriveNewportBeach.CA 92660119-261 ..13,21440-142 ..23
.''•.•.~'~•.,.•••_,".,0
<TIMOTHY SHEPARD,>2215 Annivesity Drive<Newport Beach.CA 92660
119-253~IB
W •WILLIAMSON '.
2908 511 ve,.Lalle'Newport Beach ,eA 92660
119-252-07'
H.N.TIN2281Golden CircleNewportBeaCh.CA 92660
119-252-13
.WILLIAM PENNELL2245GoldenCircleNewportBeach.CA 92660
119-252-18
RICHARD DINKENS2416University DriveNewportBeach.CA 92660
439-301-19
liMOTjiYOOONHLEY2904SilverLaneNI!WlXU'tBeach.CA 92660
119-252-06
WILLA LEE
2240 r~lden CircleNewportBeach.CA
11!H!!l3-02
RICHMD BECKNER2909SilverLaneNewportBeach.CA 92660
119-253-03
!;i~'bfrj~~~·P.O.llg;;1141 .
Newport Beach.CA 92663
439-301-21
CYNTHIA BROWN
2274 Golden Circl
Newport Beach.CA 92660
119-252-14
EARL SAWYER
535 Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach.CA 92660
439-301-20
S;"i'Y.BANK····OFiAHER I CA
.801N.Main Street
Santa Ana.CA 92701
439-301-22
CLAYTON BEIlLIIiG
2207 Anniversity Drive
Newport Beach.CA 92660
119-253-09
EOMOUND SWEARINGEN
2261 Golden Circle
Newport Beach.CA 92660
119-252-16
GERTRUDE COROIINA
2424 University Drive
Newport Beach.CA 92660
439-301-07
J.KEITH THOMPSON
2250 Golden Circle
Newport Beach.CA 92660
119-253-03
JAMES KLIEGEL
4521 Gorham Drive
Newport Beach.CA 92660
439-301-18
JOHN CLABAUGH
22625 Lakeside Lane
.~I'Tofo.CA 92630
,119-252"'11
JOHN VAN IAN
1724 W.Newport Hills Drive
Newport Belch.CA 92660
119-253-16
JOSEPH PARKINSON
2230 Golden Circle
Newport Beach.CA 92660
119-253-16
LEAR OHLAND
versity DriveNe\ilpor'tBeach.CA 92660
fiRST AMtRICAN TRUST CO.
2101 San JoaqUin Hills Rd.
Newport Beach.Ca 92660
439-301-09
GEORGE OCIlANI;R
IB34 Univer~lty Drive
Newport 8each.CA 92660
439-301-08
HELEN JOHNSON
2410 University Drive
Newport Beach.CA 92660
439-301-16
HESTER fOY
2237 Golde"Circle
Newport Beach.CA 92660
119-252-25
JAMES COOPER
2253 Golden Circle
Newport Beach.CA 92660
119-252-17
JAMES DEANE
73-210 El Paseo Suite 2HPalmDesert.CA 922
119-261-12
I),
I
JEFFREV PIEROSE
421 Mari90ld Avenue
Corona Del Mar.CA 92625
119-252-10
JEN KE PARTNERSHIP
2260 Golden Circle
Newport Beach.CA 92660
119-253-04
JOHN MOSHER
1131 Anniversity Lane
Newport Beach,CA 92660
119-253-06
JOliN SIGRIST
25v6 Un1vers~ty Drive
Newport BeaCh.CA 92660
439-301-14
JOHN WRIGHT
2404 University Drive
Newport Beach.CA 92660
439-301-11
JOSEi'H MESHI
226B Golden Circle
Newport Beach.CA 92660
439-301-13
KATHERINE HAGENBUCH
2400 University Drive
Newport Beach.CA 92660
439-301-11
LAWREIiCE BEMIS
2404 University Drive
Newport Beach.CA 92660
439-301-13
LYMAN JORDAN
2402 UnIversity Drive
Newport Beach.CA 92660
MAHMOOD SHAREEF
2926 Silver Lane
Newport BeaCh.CA 92660
ok of AlMr'tc.
l N.,,,In It....An.,CA '9V01.+&"I-"?,o,.'1'l,.
_vton ""Un,
1 Annlw~.'tv Dr.1iO;;."'t Iktach.CA 92h60
"<\$"-0'1
Eu!unfI ....,.tn..,.
224t1 1Io1.den Ctrd.
......t Be"h,CA 92660
"'l.'l,.~"",c,
GoItr-trude COr'ann.
2424 Uni.,.,..Uy Dr.
.......-t.hach.CA'2460+....""1-0;
J ..I(eUh ~Hn
22SO 8al.d.,Ct.-d.
........t "uh.CA92640,,,'t.'I.'S'\.It)..._;""~'..~.,:..,;,7".~.:'<:'.
~~lC1i~.l4821_h ...ilr •.
........t.,8IIactI~CA 9'26.0
';H"'''0'~tI,'",~'~~'
'how.Cillil ........
2262S ~.k ••id.Lan_
11 ,Tero,CA If243011'1 -'l.n-I\
,".
.tohn,y*".".
,Inot"............Min.Dr.
~t,.."h~CA92660
;icll'l''Io ~1.,,'7
.zo.e,m p.,kln..-m
2230 Golden Clrel.
~-..ch.CA92660...,'I-'Zoo.-,t...•
0'.,.'._,
hnk C'f ~ort
P.O.Bolt 1747"-"'Pat't "'.cI1,CA'P2~3
411-"'01-'1.1
Cynt.hia I)rDMtl
227S 201den Cirel.
~t bach,CA "211&0
""''1~'1-I''
Firat American T~at Co.
210t S.n J~qui"Hilla Rd
HMlPOf"t hac:h.CA 1'26~
.4.'1-'"<>'.".,
..I.,.,Johnwon
2~IOUni~.ity Dr.
~t "aclt,CA '9211bO+1"-'!oD I -J (,
J __
22S3 801d.n Ctrcl.
~t Bc.ch,CA 9~
.""-'l.n-I,
--'.a.-ff,..y 'ttWo-
,42&...,.1Qold AY_.
.Caran&riel .......CA .262:1
'.11"-'l.$"l.-IO
J__
2%SJ.Annl"...,..~ty Un_
.....cr-t Beach,CA ¥20b0
/Iq -1.n-D"
J_...lont
24<WlJniY .....lt:y.Dr.,....,.t Iuch'CA ~
~S<\-l"'I-IS;
Kattt-eri n.~buch
2400 UniY~&.~yDr.
........t.hac::h,CA 92640.'4'~·~o,·11
IS.y Cor"por.t..jilin_~
:001 Do.tt.l"bcr 81vel.Iea_ta ....IN.CA 92i126 I
IIq-'1."I~1l ;\
«.,.)hwv"-
~~Via Lido Saud
Nawport.e..ch.CA 92660
4\1·...'·:.'"
hGrQ.QchllnM
.834 Univera''tv Dr'.
NtnoIport ".chl CA 'f'2b60
41'1-101-08
....t:....Fay2237Golden Cire1.
NeMpCl"t.eeach,CA 92bobO
1/'!-"L7"l.."L5
Jaee_n•.".
73-210 El P......'Suit.2H
Pal It n••.,.t.CA 92:2
11'l~'l.IoI·I'\.
"en ~p.,.t..,...,.p
2260 Solden C.~cl.........t dI.CA~II'·'l,.S ~
.John 819"'t_t
2504 Un1 ".,..ltv Dr.
HMtpc:w"t ".en.CA fl2b60
1$-1,\-,01-1+
Jauph......,'2268 Solo.n Circle
NhplW',t .hadt,CIt 9U6O
'1l4-1.n-0 S"
L.•.",..,ce ......
2404 UnSy~~Sty Dr~
Nftwport hach,C.'f'2i*O
4-11"",-IJ
~9h.,-*
2926 atly ....Lane"'"'Perot IhNeh.:A 92b6O
II 4."tl;"l.-"'.
Pitt ....KaUcnz:••
2904 P.....-Lan.
~t ".ch.CA 92660114....'t'.'lj.
.aUy 8r'a.n
2?B5 Gold~Circle
Nttttprwt hech.t:A n6bOIIq,-"5 'l._,-,.j
:1 Ti8Ot:hy Shepard
221:5 AnnlvoW'.ity Dr.
........ort e..Ch.CA ~
i/Q-1.n-o 9jWtllt..Pann.ll
224fi Golden Cll"~l.
Nlhlpar1:"ach,CA IPZb60
1\'1-'/.5'/.·'8
Rofutrt Kelland
2905 filll~Lane.....ort a..c.h,CA 92600""-'1.S"l..''''
R..L.../J ..Col1lt\<1.
267 ....1.,.._*"0 .....
LGrtQ "acft,CA li10801"q ....,,,-,SO
Th.Irvin.~MJV
~~Qf""t Cent.,tw.
.....='"t a.~h.CA 't2-6-6O
1l1-,""1 ...~,'&.I
440 ""14'1.-1.')
w.NUHaeeon
2900 !ii1v.,Len.
NAowoGIort.Beach I CA IIf2.6&O
/''l-1.S'1-0,
H.N.TSf'l
2281 9clCf.n t."cl.
~t Beach,CA 92660114.·z.r ....,?>
r·
eUcnard Dink..,.
24J6 Unsverelty Dr.
~t ae.ch,CA 92660H~·''',.''''
n.,t.hy n:.tm.Uey
2'f04 II'J VfW Leue
~t Beach,CA 9'266(j
If'l-1.~"I..""
"U"Loe2240Golcs.n Cir"c:l ..
~h.et1r t:A '¥2660
IIq·....U-O"1,
•••••••
•
119 •26
,
8
BLK.5 /@
J'OIA~.
S=E /
::I:N~E.RT/
/
------:h~----,:\
:\
I
I
•
...
fl9.2~
\
\
\
\J \'0\
:
t CD••
..,'
,......
I''"
•NO 4444
:,M:@ '",(i)•~•
o=J ..
CD
c-D
~
~®l..
@ :
"
~
.-@
@)•"
439-30
Planning C"...issicn Keen,,?..__JIPrll D.lill
Ag"nda Item 110..-"".1.._
CITYOF NEWPORTBEACH
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Planning Department
SUllJECT:Variance No.1140 (Amended)<Public HeariD&!
Request to 8IIIenda previously approved varianca which permitted
the construction of a pr0l'osed expansion t<>an existing
Y.M.C.A,facility which exceeded th,,2/.foot ba8ic height limit
in the 24/?8 Foot Height LiRitation District.The proposed
amendment 1nvc>!ves a request to approv~3 further increase in
the height by 4 feet on portions of the previously approvedbUilding.
LOCATION:Parcel No.1 of Parcel Kap No.3-35 (R..subdlvlslon No.215),
located at 2300 University Drive,on the northerly side of
University Drive,easterly of Tustin Avenue in the West BayArea.
ZONE:R-l
Al'PLICA..'IT:Banzuelo/Rierson/Duff and Associates,Anaheim
OWNER:Newport Costa Mesa Y.M.C.A.,Newport Beach
Application
Th!s is a request to amend a previ<lusly approved Var1allC<>which limited the
height of portiona of the building to 28 feet above ,",!sting grade.The
applicant wlahes to,.odify th1scnndition so aa to permit parapllt ,willIs to
increase~n additional~feet for "aesthetic reasons and to aid in the screening
of roof mounted mechanical equipaent.
lIAl'kground
~.,,.
At its iIl""tlng (If MayS.,1983,the PlanninsC01B~...~on 4pprov~4 a pJ;p/losed
f/xpanslonof.theexistlng RsvpoJ;t CQste Kasa100JA (then called th.e.Orange<Cosst
'YMCA);Sa14action -inclucSEod:theappJ;oval ofthefolJ,f;I.!!lng "l'plicetloQP:.
1.Accepcancaof a Traffic Study prepared p~r~~t~Cltat>t~l:lS;l.O of
the Newport Besch llunicipal Code ("Traffic 1'Iwsing·Ordinance")and
City Policy S·l ("Administrative G>1idelines for Implementing the
Traffic Phaaing Ordinance"),
TO:Planning Commission ·2.
been prepared in compliance with the California Environ11lentalQuality
Act (CEqA),the ·State CEqA Guideline.·snd City Policy K-3,
3.The approval of an amendment to Use Permit No.1128 so as to allow
the construction of a 44,564 ±sq.ft.~ddition that Included youth
and family fitness facilities,a gymnastics centar,a child care
cflinter,offices,a community meeting center,and an illuminated roof
top jogging/exercise area.
The proposal also included modifications to the Zoning Code so as
to allow a portion of the propo.ed building,a new trash enclosure,
and a six foot vall to encroach inco the required 20 foot front yard
setback,a portion of the required parking spaces to be compact
spaces,and to allow two wall llIOUntedidantif1cation signs in excess
of 2 sq.ft.
4.The approval of Variance No.1098 to allow a portion of the proposed
addition to exceed the maximum allowable height in the 24/28 Foot
Height Limitation District.
In accordance with Sections 20.80.090 and 20.82.090 of the Municipal Code,use
psrmits and variances automatically expire after 24 months from the effective
date of approval if a building permit has not been issued prior to the expiration
date and subsequently construction is diligently perused to completion.
Inasmuch as building permits were not issued for the project within 24 months
of the effective date of approval for Use Permit No.1128 (Amended)IIndVariance
No.1098,said applications expired on MIIy 27,1985 in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 20.80.090 and 20.82.090 of the Municipal Code.
At its I/Iaetingof July 9,1987,the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No.
1128 (Ardendad)and Variance No.1140 which granted the M"'!l'."'1pl:""",ls as
previously granted by the Planning Commission for the same project,.Said action
was taken with the findings and subject to the condlt1ons of approval set forth
in the attached excerpt or the Planning Commission minutes dated July 9,1987.
Staff has also attached aeopy of the July 9,1987 staff report for the Planning
Commission's information:It should also be noted that the second approval of
Use Permit No.1128 <Amended)wss for a period of three years;therefore,said
approval is vslid until July 30,1990.
At its m~eting of Harch 9,1989,the Planning Commissioll made a deter~instion
't!\ata review of the 'revised·pllMSl of the 'YMCA facilities were.in ll'abstantial
eonfo1'laaneewiththe plimllprevlously approved by the Planning C'1I/IIlIisslj)t\OtlJuly
9.1987,by Use Pti:rmitNo;'1128 (Amendad)andVari'lRceNo,1140,.AlfIo,it was
datermined that no further traffie study would be required for the di~cr"'pancy
il1 sllllllrefool:,ge,
TO:Planning Commission -3.
Environmental Sitpificance
In conjunction with the Planning COlll111hsion'sconsideration of the pr~·Jl"u.Use
Permit No.1128 (Amended)and Variance No.1098,an Initial Study wa.prepared
and it was determined that the project would not have a significant envl.r.......ntal
impact.Ssaed upon th ..infoI1ll4tion contained in the Initial Study and suggested
mitigation measures,the Planning Commissionaccepted a Negative Declaration forthepreviousproject.
Inasmuch as there have been no changes in the subject project and further that
th"r~are no significant environmental impacts resulting from the current project
that were not considered in the previous Initial Study,no further ellvironment!.l1
review is required at this time and the previous accepted environmental documentshallapplyinthiscase.
Conformance with the General Plan And the L?cal Coastal Program
The Land Use El~ment of the General Plan snd the Local Cosstal Program des1gnate
the site for "Governmental,Educfttiona,l,and Institutional facl,11tles"uses.The
existing YMCAcomplex on the property in question fall.w!thin the usespermitted.
Subject Property and Surrounding Land U,~
The Newport Costa I14sa YMCAcomplex is located on the si te.The existing
development is constructed on a pad apprOXimately 15 feet abOve the adjoining
properties.To.thenorthea ..t is.the Annivarsery EstateG single family
residential development;to the southeast!s an office complex;'to the southwest,
across the Univers1.ty Drive right-of-way,is vacant property;and to the
northwest,ecrossa 28foC)t,w~~alley,it<all.att.ched Ill\Jlt1-tAlllily residentialarea..
Analysi'of Variance ReguAst
The applicant is requesting an au,endment to Variance No.1140 so as to sllow
portions of the approved struc:tl1re an increlllled height which will match the
height of the apPJ;oved..ll}'IIIl1lIsi\yAII,and which will exceed the maximumallowable
height in the 24/28 F~oj:)leigh';.Lil&it~tionDbtrict..As shown on the attached
el""'''t:ions anddepictadbycr(Jjls-h"tching,~hehightlst porUC)l1of the proposed
additions will be the Parape'~..wallaeroundth41gymnaslUlll,racquetball courts,
and multi-purpose room.The gymnasiumwae previouSly approVad to a maximl.uilof
33 to 35 feet to top of parupet.and the incr41aaedheight of the tacquatball
court and multi-purpose rooa'portions of the bUlldingw1l1notillcCe'l<Pthia
height.The illCr41s,sedh..illllt..t9the.par~pet.Ji.lla is.to eoha.nce.the ae.sthetic
look of the·atrueture as well as ·to aid in the scteening ofpropoaed roof tC)j>
lllechanical equipment.Anotherre ....on f"r.th"il)cr!'lI4ledl)ei/lhtis to a..,,,id any
,dellignor cotUltruetionprobl"lllliJihichliU1Y Mfesdt.at ..an'infraased bd/lht ot the
approved atl:\.lC~reand.which ;ccul,d.possib.lyforestal1 the'ci>~lItnu:tion while
.application for a varianc"111.aull"lj:j:cid...TC)assiat tlie .•Pl"rming 'CoiI!Iiss1im in
identifY~!lg.t~aJ;eall.o~·'.~II~iA~.d,p~~,a!=..tf ..hill>P;flll ..r"cl'tJlci~"llowillg
table.whictt aeta forth theprevi"l1s1y appiovedheigfJt'th4!P~~~••d int:ressas,';;'it))~:
;}~,
TO:Planning Commission-4.
Pro!lQII~.!J
~1(~J.ui!tl.&ht
and the corresponding locations of each portion of the building as shown on the
attached plans.
The Zoning Code requires that in order to grant any varianc",.the Plenning
Commission must find that the applicant has established the grounds for a
variance set forth in Chapter 20.82 (Section 20.82.020 of th"Ne",port lleach
Municipal Code):
1.Tha~there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying
to land.1:>llilding or use referred to in the application,which
cir.c\llllstances or c.o.nditions do not apply generally to land,buildings
and/or uses .in the same dist~ict.
2 •That thegr.int1ng of the awlication is MeeSllary for the
preservat >n and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the
applicant.
3.That the granting of such applicat.ion "'ill not.under the
circumstances of the particular case,be materielly detrimental to
the health.safe.t:>"peace.cOmfort.and general weIfare af persons
residing or working in the neighbOrhood of the propllrty of the
apPlicant .anr.will not unde.rthe cii'cumstancesofthe particular case
b~...,.l:er1,:,.ly detrimental to.the public welfare or ittjurioll&to
prape~t:y im~rov~mentsin thene1ghbOrhood.
fprtion pf Building Sheet No.
Qrig1>'11
Height Approved
A-7 Varies 33 ft.-
3S ft.to top
of parapet.
Gymnasium
Multi-Purpose Room A-7 28±ft.to top
of pliral'et;
30 ft.(a-,erage)
to midpoint of
insulatlld sky-
lights.
Racquetball Courts A-l 28±ft.to top
of parapet.
32±fe.to top of
parapet;skylights
..11lli""t.d from
plan.
32i ft.to top of
psupet.
APp'l t:c,a.nt,i'.i'.S ¥ateme#~'s"tft'SW~~ort'
jIb'lt ellCeDd.Orikr el rF!!'l's~&ri$~sapph to the Wtldl.nt.P1:ooettyoj;uset.
TO:Planning Commission-5.
top running track has been totally eliminated and will not be bUilt at a later
date.The roof structure as designed would not scrucrurally aecolllOOOd.otes
runnh.g track and the legal edts htive been P.1iminated.Thar..fore we beHeve
the roof-top running track will never be built.The fear residents may hev..
about strangers invading their visual privacy and night-time 111'~lnatlon and
noise has been eliminated.Also,the activities in this facility are diff ..rent
from those on the surrounding R·l properr.ies.The Y.H.C.A.offllu bor.h ath16tic
activities and cOlll1l1Ullityservice acr.ivitie".The "ysteu to serve tht>ae
activities can be of a different msgnir.uder.han r.hose in r.he adjacent structures.
The Y.H.C.A.requires a minimum25 foot clear height in the gym and gymfI-dtics
rooms in order to qualify for intenear.ional olympic evencs such as basketball,
volleyball and gymnastics.In an infomal survey by the Y.M.C.A..there are no
presenr.facilitiu in the City of Newport Beach that qualify by the Olympic
COIl1lllUteefor olympic use .The 25 foot cl ....r height ,is th"\lIini""",,s.tandard of
the spores intended for these uses ..TheY.H.C.A.origill411ywsnted 30 foot clear
but reluetently reduced the clesr height to 25 feet as an attempt to ~intain
goodwill within the communityat a sacrifice to their 5ervices.The·additional
increase of 4 feer.is drastically required in order for the Y.H.C.A.to prOVide
these services and still conform to the conditional use permit requirement to
screen mechanical equipment from view.Every attempr.has been made.1.e.varying
heights of building elements and offsets;but the Ise of equipmenr.screening is
etill necessary."
Why-is a 'VAriance necessaty to pre"ry@ property rights?
"The building systems,snd in r.urn the very services provided by the Y.H.C.A.
to the c01lllllUt1.ity,are being ill1lllenselyaffected by the curr:"ntbuilding height
limitations.The effects are both functional and economic.TheY.H.C.A.height
as allowed by the current conditional use permir.does not block the views to the
Back Bey any IIOre than it has since 1969 when r.he Y.H.C.A.W411originally built.
This w....illustrated by a comprehensive slide pr,,"'!Ilr.ll,t:ion/!:Q.th..Pla~ing
COllilllissionat the 1983 hearings.An sdditional hei~t o(4f ..et",in.~r opinion,
would not effecr.the view to theBtick Bay area any mOJ;e'th&nwbatiS already
permitted.The heights requested by this variance is permitted by the Coaetal
Commission,the Orenge County Airport Land Use COlllllission and the Federal
Aviar.ion Administration.The heights requested by this,;yariance would contribute
greatly to noise reduction to surrounding neighborhoods."
.,
Why will propos&1 !lot be detr1mentalsp the I!l!iBhbprhpod?
"The Y.H.C.A.serves the health,recreational and social needs of the hsrbor
area.Tho increased building efficienoy.w1ll halp .provide It facility to more
ably serve the cOllllllUnity.The needed height increasudoee not block any aojacent
views nor set anyprecedente.~
TO:Planning Commission -6.
~'Gific Findings and Recommendation
Sect.ion 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach MUnicipal Code provides t.hat in order to
grant any variance,the Planning Commissionshall find that:d",establishment.
"'-'Iintenance,or op..rat~on of the us ..or building applied for will not,under the
circUl8J!ltancesof the particular caae,be detrillllmtal to tlu.health,aafety,
peace,morals,comfort,and general welfare of persons redding or working in
the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detriroental or inj'Jflous to property
and improvements in the neighborhood or the genexal welfare 01 the City.
Staff is of .the opinion that the proposed increased .h61.ght of the various
portions of the structure will IUlt result in any ad4itional loss ef views then
is affected by the "xlsting at>proved structure.The increued height of the
psrapets is ~lso necessary to ensure c""pliancew1th Condition NoZ of Use Pemit
No.1128 (Alll&rlded),requiring "thAt all mechanical equij)1ll8ntand trash areu
shall be screened from University Drive and adjoining propertiu.,which may not
be possible d,,"to Condil:.ion No.3 of Variance·No.1140 rfl;quir1ng "that the
hdght of the parapet walls shall be limited to that required by Code,which is
42 inches.The proposed stairwells .hall be no higher than the approved heightoftheparapetwalls."
Should the Hanning COIllllll9sionwish to approve the request to incr ....."the height
of portions of the Y.M.C.A.facility,the findings and conditions of approval
.et forth in the attached Exhibit "A"are suggested.If the Planning Commis.ion
desires to dany the variance request,an attached Exhibit "S"with appropriate
findings has been providad.
PI.AllNIlIGDEPARTKEIlT
JAMESD.IIElnCKER,Dliectbr
~~By .:IL'~
avterGarcia·•.&Jilt ...
.Senior Planner·'
Attachments:Vicinity Map
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "a"
Excerpt,of Planning CommissionMinutes
..dsted'llarch 9,1989
Excerpt of Planning CommissionMinute.
,da.te<lJuly9,1987
Pll1llning'C01lllll1sB1onStaff lleport dared
July'9,1987
Excerpts of Planning COlI!IIIlSsion·Ki'llures
dated April 21,1983 and May 5,1983
Plot Plan.Floor Plans and Elevation.
TO:Planning Commission -7.
£lO:lIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAl.
VARIIu'lCE NO.1140 ("""ended)
Findings:
1.That thel'e are exceptional or extraordinary
cil'cumstancesapplying to the land,bUilding,and use
proposed in this application,which circumstances and
conditions do not generally apply to land.bUilding.
and/or USes in the same district inasmuch aD the
increased height of the various portions of thp.
structure will not result in any additional 1088 of
views than is affected by the existing approved
structure that exceeds the permitted bUilding height.
2.That the granting of a variance to the height
requirement i.necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the
applicant.inasmuch as without the height.the proposed
mechanical equipment on the roof may not be screened as
required hy the approval of Use Permit No.1128
(Amended).
3.That the establishment,maintenance.and operation of
the use,propel'ty.and bUilding will not.under the
c1rcumst""""s of.the particular ease.be detri....ntal to
the health,safety.peace.,comfort,and general welfare
of;persons residl.ng9r ~orking in the neighborhood of
such proposed use or dl'trimental or injurious to
property and improve....nts in the neighborhood or the
general welfare of the City.
Conditions:
1.That developOlentshall be in substsntial
with the approved plot plan.floor
elevations.except as noted below.
conformance
plans.and
2.That all applicable conditions of Use Permit No.1128
(Amended)shall be fulfilled.
3.That the height of the paupet walls shall be as
required by the Uniform Building Code.but no higher
than 32±feet.above existing grade.The proposed
stairwells shall be no high6r than the approved height
of the parapet walls.
•
TO:Planning Commission -8.
EYJlIBIT •B"
FINDINGS rOF DENIAL OF
VARIANCE N~.1140 (Amend~d)
1.That there ore no exceptional or cMraordinary
circumstances applying to the land,bUilding,and use
"roposed in this application,which circUl••tsnce land
conditions do not generally apply to land,building,
and/or uses 0..the other hts in the arca which justify
the af;>roval of the proposed illCreased height.in exccs.
of the height limit approved by the previous Variance
No.1140.
2.That the granting of a variance to the height
requirement is not necessary for the pr~servation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the
spplicant,inas=h ..s the proposed mechanical equipment
on the roof could be relocated eluowhere on the
property,and so,the additl.onal height of the parapet
walls would not be necessary.
3.That the establishment,maintenance,and ope,ation of
the use,property,and building will,under the
circumstancea of the particular case,be detrimentsl to
the health,safety,peace,comfort,and general welfare
of persons residing or wor~ing 1n the ne1ghbothvvd of
sueh proposed us ..and be dstr1mental or injurious to
property and improvements in the neighborhood snd the
general welfare of the City,inasmuch as the proposed
development will inerease the visual bulk of the
building.
II
II
I\
I
I '.:.,
"I ,,
I!
I
\
\1
1\
II
Iin"
II
(
Ii
1\
1\I,
III:
1\,.
Ii
III
I
\
\
1I
Ii
...------=x-_..«-".m ft=--.---.:::""-----,
"1"'"".
•I
\~\rr
\~~
I
1-1~l ~!>n.-~u
~••i~?w v,•::..•z J"0w0-u :.:J0
':;:;:.c
6~~:..~<:
c!..
,",
I.II.\
\,
\
\
COMMISSIONERS·
ROLL CALL
•
CITV OF NEWPORT BEACH I INDEX
All Ayes
•
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
{:t,i!l!ly Uni t
O["dir~~
Review of Y K,C,A Flans DlSCU:,;siOfI
It,elm 1
Request to review revised plans of the Y.M C.A,facUlties
so as to determine if saId plans are in &ub§tantial
confomanc.e with the pll4I1lllapproved oJ the Pl&nning
Comission.
Commissioner Pers6n made a mot.ion to :1eterm.int::that.the
plans are 1n substantial conformance.
CotmIliS51ooorWinburn concurred.She state-d that after
reviewing the proposed project and takir'll into
consideration that the applicant is 11 n()f)-proflt
orgdnlzatlon,that a traffic study vould not be Iwcep.s~ry.
Chairman Pomeroy and Commissioner 01 SatKl concurred wi th
the foregoing statements.
Mr.Tony Sanzuelo,architect,appeared before the Planning
Commission to address the 3.000 square foot error,and the
time lapse between 1983 when the proj~ct waa approved to
this date.Mr.Banzuelo stated that th~re i.a porsibility
that tha applicant will come to the Planning Commission to
request an amendment to the variance regarding the height
of thflbuilding.
Th~foregoing BOtion was vo~ed on.MOTION CARRIED.
***
Req t to revieW'and clarify the intent of 'p(\rtions.of thfi
Granny it Ordinance.
C01lllllluioner rs6n requested thae th<l City Attorney .·mend
the Granny Uni rdinance to reflect that the pr .'""ry
residence shall be cupied by the property owner at the
time the occupying pe e is grantadforthe granny unit.
Robert Burn!ullll.City At nay.suggested to provide for
occupancy of the'....in st ure by the property owner
at the time the construction 0 e granny unit i••igned
off by r~~Building Department.
CI1"VOF NEWPORT·.BEACH
IiNDEX
~at oil mini!lWm of five off-street parkir"J spilces
g 1 be required in conjunction with th~rroposl~d
cpel'on.
XU ..110.a
llPllla
Yill.2.
P£Proved
4.That shall park on-site.
5.Commission may add or lIlOdify
al to this use p"rmit,c
reconoeOO to the ei council the revocation of
this use permit.upon determination that the
operation which is the SuD et of this use p"ndt
causes injury.or is detr 1 to too OOalth,
safety,peace.raorals,comfort,general welfare',f the ccmmunity.
6.This use p"rmit shall expire unle...orcieed
within 24 ..,nths from the date of appr
specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the 1IleWJ>'IEt
Bead.Municipal Code.
•
A.Use Permit 110.1128 (Amended)(Public Hearing)
Request to _00 a preViously approved use permit which
permitted the eatabliabDent of a~faeility in the
R-l District.The proposed _n&oent involves a
request to construet ..44,564~3q.ft.eddition that
ineludes youth and falllily fitJllllesfaeilities,..9}'l!lI'llIl ....
tic.,"cenj:er,a child caracenter,ofn"""""cCllllZlilnlty
lIMiatin'1""ntu and an •iU\lIS1lll1ted roof t:opj~9inq/fJOX~
erei ....."rea.The propC>lIIll"ISO .ineludes a lIlOdifieation
to the ZOning COde so as to aUow:"portion·of the
proposed buildin'1,an enclosed trash area,and a 6 foot
high wall to encroach into the required 20 foot front
yard setback,a portion of the"required parking spaces
to be compact spaces,and to aUow t_wall mounted
identification si'1n9 in excess of 2 sq.ft.
B.Varianc"110.1140 (Public Hearing)
Request to allow elterationa and additwns to .the
exisl:inq YMCA facility tohich will exceed the maxitwm
allowable building heiqht in the 24/2~Foot lIeight
Limitation District..
-20-
ROLL CALL
'CITY OF NEWPORr ','BEACH
INDEX
Motion
Parc~l No.1 of Parcel Map no.j-)5
(Reaubdivision No~215),locdt~d at
2300 Uni .....ersity Drive _on thfJ north-
erly side of University Dr1v~,~a$terly
of ~~stin Avenue in the West nay Area.
ZONE,R-l
llPPLlCANT,Newport Costa Mesa YMCA
OWNER,Same as applicant
The public hearing was opened in connection with this
item,and Mr.James de Boom,Executive Oir~tt~r for the
Newport Costa Mesa YMCA appeared before the COmmission.
Mr.de Boom stated his concurrence "'i th th..staff
report a"d the findings and conditions <>f approval
ccntained in Exhibit -A."
In response to a query by Commis9ioner Winburn,Mr.de
Boom said that the Newport Costa ""sa YMCAoperated
several sites throughout the City and served some
16,000 persons.
CCllDJ.aaionsr Debay opined that the completion of the
propoaedprojeet would add greatly to youth faciliti~a
"in ·the City.
COIlIIlisaioner Winburn,In answer,to ,a query by CCOIois-
aion ..r .<Debay,expl4in"d 1:¥1:.~cau""of,prev10as
Cbjectiollsto th",heiqhto.£.the,,,trupture,it "aa he!ng
"lowered 30 ,.iDChea'".iJlto the ,gr~dt and any further
lowering would be ...ost prohibitive to the project.
Motion was _de to
Variance Mo.1140
conditions contained
approve Use Permit
subject to the
in Exhibit "~.•
Mo.1128 and
fL"ldinqs and
There being no others desirinq to appear "lid be heard,
the p'~lic hearinq was closed at this tIme.'
InrecaUil1gthelasttim<l 'that the pr~S6d project
wsa heard b2fore 'the Planning Colma1ssion,I'lanninq
Director Hewicl<er stated 1:iIato;te~t~.inStitutions
such'.as·,the YiICA',#Iur'rhes'0 ;'t'rr ~have r ..ce~ved',ap-
prc>~~!for their "espect,ive,p"()je~\:!,,and then,~ue t.o
various reasons,sre u#ble to ,ge1:the project,started
before the 24 IlOtlth eXpiration ~riod.•'1'IIerefore;if
the Planning COlIIIaissionwiahes to extend the ~year
-21-
ROLL CALL
AmendJ!ent
to Motion
All Ayes
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
July 9,1<>67
INDEX
period as it applies to the proposed Ff"'~)N:;t,the
Commission could do so with an amendment to t.~R~tiQn
on th£!floor..Mr..Hewicker also cJ.arifl(1f)that i;l.n
extension of the permit period would not off.ct the
approved Traffic Study which expires on D(::c~~!'f.ber 10,
1987.
The IllOtion on the floor was amended to include cll"'''1ing
Condition No.42 to read "That this use pc.rtdt shall
expire unless exercised within 36 months fram the date
of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the
newport Beach Municipal Code."l~tion voted ona
MOTION CARRIED.
A.Use Permit No.1128 (Amended)
FINDINGS:
1.That the proposed use is consistent with the '....nd
Use Elements of the General Plan and the Local
Coastal Program,and is compatible with surround-
ing land uses ..
2.That the proposed number of compact car sPAces
constitutes 19 percent of the parking requirements
which is within limits,generally accepted by the
Planning COIllIDissionrelative to preVious similar
applications.
3.That the proposed uSe of compact parking spaces,
thefrontyardencroac:hl!lenta and pl'opo*"d idfilnti-
fiC:"tion>signs,willnot,.tmdel'the circUlll5tsncee
of the thie particulal'case,be detri1llental to the
health,safety,peace,comfort,and general
welfare of pel'sons residing 01'working in the
neig!lb<>l'bood of such proposed use or be detri-
mental or injurious to property and improvelllents
in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the
City an/l 'further that the proposed modifications
areeonsistent with the legiolaUve intent of
Title 20 of this Code.
4.TMt the·projeet will cooply with all applicable
City and State .Building c::odes and Zllning require-
mentsfornew.buildingappll.cable to tIKI di$tr1ct
in which the pl'oposed pl'oject is lceated,except
'.:hose it""'"requested in conjunedon·with·tlKl
proposed modifieations.'.
CIT·YOFNEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
6.That adequate off-street parking i.Uld rel.:st.bd
vehicular circulation are being prt,1Vided in
conjunction with the proposed developm'mt.
7.That all significant environmental c()nc~rns for
the proposed project have been addrU."d in a
previously certified environmental doc""""nt.,and
further,that there art:no a.dditional rf!'oluJonable
alternative or miti~ation measures that should be
considered in conjunction with said projact.
5.That the project lot size contom.5 to th ..Z0nitlrl
Code area requirements.
a.That baaed on the information contained in t.he
previous Initial Study and Negative O"elaration,
the project incorporates sufficient mltiqatlon
measur~s to reduce potentially significant en-
vironmental effects,and that the project will not
result in signifiCAnt environmental impaeto.
9.That the approval of Use Paxmit 110.H20 (_oded)
will not,under the circumstances of this case be
detrimental to the health,safety,peace,morals,
comfort and gsneral welfare of persons residing
and working in·the ne1ghlx>rhoodor be detrimental
or injurious·to property or improvements in the
neighlx>rhood or the genel'al welfl>re of tile City.
<:o!IDITIOIlS,
1.Tbal:<levelopaent shall be.in substant{~l eonfor-'
manee ··with'the·spproved plot plan,floor .plans,
elevation.and sections,except as noted below.
2.That !Ill mechanical equipment and truh areas
shall be screened from University Drive and
adjoining properties.
3..Thai:all·illlprovl!1llentsbe constructed as·required
by ordinance and .the l'ubllc Works Department...
4.That vehicular access be provided to the existing
stOrm'drain .easement acee.s road located:at the
nbrth""st"rlycorner of the parcel to the sad ....
factiondf the Public Works Department,.
July."1ge7
INDEX
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROll CALL INDEX
5.Thc1.t the on-site vehicular and P(~dc8-trj;)'i r:jrcu-
lution systems he subject to fUT.t-hNr cec;riew
by the Public Works Department,inc14~lfi~the
design of the proposed service dri.ve",aya,
6 &That prior to the occupancy of th~proposed
project,the circulation system impt!J'!J~nts
described in the Traffic Study dated April,1983
on Page 10 prepared by JEF Engineering,Inc.,
shall have been acc""'PUshed unless sl:lblleqUent
project approvals require modifications thereto.
(The ult~mate design of the intersection shall be
subject to the approval of the City Traffic
Enqineer).
7.That the eXisting deteriorated drive apron and
gutter on the University Drive frontltflc 1J4.re-
placed under an encroachment permit i5nued by the
Public Works Oepartment.
B.That prior to the issuance of a buildinq penllit,
the applicant shall demonstrate to the sotisfac-
ti.on of the Planning Department and too Public
Works Department,that sever facili~ies wUl be
available for the pr<>ject at the Hili<!of occu-
pancy.
9.That arrang_nts be made with the Public Works
Department to guarantee satisfactory completion of
..the publ1c1mprov_nts.
10.T1ia.ta·"",ster pillno!sever,water and s.tora drain
faciliti"s be prepared and approved by the Public
Works Department prior to issuance of any buildinq
pe""'its.
11.Development of site shall be subject to a gradinq
penlli t to be approved by the Buildinq alld Planning
Departments.
12.That a grad1ng plan,1f required,shall inclUde a
complete plan for telll[lOrary llo"l r>ermanentdrainage
facilitiesj to Ddniwize ronypotential lMpa~tsfrOM
311t,debris,"nd ot"~r water pollutanu.
13.The grading 1"'....1<:shall inclUde,it required,"
description of haul routes,&cces~po+nts,to the
site,watering,'nd sw.,eping proql'8l!l designed to
mii11mb:e·ilOpact·(>f Ila\ll.operations i
ROLL CALL INDEX
•
C1T,Y OFNEW.RORT BEACH
14.An erosion,siltation and dust cont.rol plail,if
required,sha.ll be submitted and be ::;WiJ".."ct 1.t)the
approval of the Building Department iJfld .)I,,'(ipy
shall be forwarded to the Californil.!li(!/:llnruf!
Water Quality Control Board,Santa Ana Rt:qlOJI.
15.The velocity of concent.rated run-off from the
project shall be evaluated and erosiv ..~Vi'1(~Ch,ie9
contl'olled as part of the project design.
16.That grading shall be conducted in accordance with
plans prepered by a Civil Engineer and ba~ed on
recommendations of a soil engineer and I1n engi-
neering geologist subsequent to the c~pletion of
a comprehensive soil and geologic inv~Bti9ation of
the site.Pe.nwment reproducible coples of.the
"Approved as Built"grading plans on ntlllirl11rd size
sheets shall bP furnished to th~Building DGpart-
mente
17.That erosion control measureH shall be donQ on any
exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or
as approved by the Grading Engineer.
18.A landscape a.'id irrigation plan for th~project
shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi-
tect.The landscape plan shall integrate and
phase the installation of .landscaping with the
proposed,CQnstruction.",ch~ule..IPrior.to the
occupancy of any.structure,the licenftd.landscape
architect shall certify to the PlanninqO&partaent
that the landacapin!J.has.been installed ihaccor-
dance with the prepared plan).
19.The landscape plan shall be subject to the review
of the Parks,Beaches and Recreation Department
and approval of the Planning Department.
20.The landscape plan.shall incluee,a l!4intenance
program which controls the use of fertilizers and
pesticides.
21.The lanclllcspe plan •..shall place heavy ~..ph'lsi.".on
the use of dr""ght,.rest'stant native and
be irrigated with s system avoid
I<urface runoffand.oller-watering.
22.The landllC./lpe.Plan~haliplace heavy
flre'"retardant ....yeq ..~atAorh The
July 9,1987
ROLL CALL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
plan shall be designed so as to lnt/·'tir.i fy t.he
landscaping for screening purposes,~vtJ;),cent t.:;;,
the Anniversary J..ane Tract,and t.o ifir.;r(1,')ge the
wa.ll and landscaping at the northwEHjtf1t'ly corner
of the site where the foot traffic itFJ.(;(;curriw;,
so as to preclude persons from gainir,q h¢cess at
this location.
23.Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of
weeds and debris.All vegetation s~~11 he regu-
larly trimmed end kept in a healthy COt.dltion.
24.That any roof top or (lther mechanical l!!<juipment
shall be sound attenuated in such a frll!llifler as to
achieve a llllIXiIaum sound level of 55 dM at the
property line.
25.That any meehanical equipment and ."..,rgoncypuwer
generators shall be screened from view and noise
associated with said installations shall be sound
attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas.
The latter shall be based upon the recommendations
of a licensed engineer or a professional engineer
practicing in acoustics,and be approved by the
Planning Department,
26.That,all buildings ,on the project sa".sball be
equipped with fire suppression syst~approved,by
the Fire Department.'
27.That all access to the b~i.lding be appraved ~the
Fire Department,
28.Th~t fire vehicular access,includinq th~proposed
planter islands,,;hall be approved by tho Fire
Department.
29.Final de_ign of the project shall,provide for,the
incorporation of water.,saving devicu,for project
lavatorics and other water-using factlities.
30.'Tha\\the ,lighting system.within
in the off-street·,parl<ing lot
and maintained in such a manner
Hgh!:IW\1rce &lid t()minimize
'9Iate 'to the ,adjacent,re"idential
'llhr:lU'be·'preparad,&lId,s:l,'1ned
tr1cal'lilnqitleerl:w1tl1.,a),ettar
"tatinq that,in hiB opinion,
been ....t.
'CITY/OF;NEWPORT/BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
31.That the final design for the parking bY('R he
approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
32.That a minimum of 181 pa.rking spaces be ,tIrovidt}Jj
on-site at all times.
33.That the location of the """'Pact parUn<1 ~p$ces
shall be redistributed within the parkin'J tot to
the satisfaction cf the City Traffic Enqir~kr.
34.That five handicap parl:in<j soaces shall b.,pro-
vided on-site unless otherwise perooitted by the
Building Department.
~s.That a maximum o~19'±()S spaces)of the parking
on-site may be compact ~rkinq spaces.
36.That the service <!r.iv<!Wayaahall be uubject to
further review and approval of the City Engineer
and City Traffic Enqineer.
37.That no niqhttimelightinq shall be pemi tted on
the running track/exercise area.except for pacing
lights 011 t,he running track.
38.That no permanent uplified pagin9 systems shall
he 'permitted in any outdoor area ,on the subject
property.
39.That the two proposed w~ll signs shall 'not be
ill\llllil1l>ted•
40.It shall be the responsibility of the YMCA to
monitor its programs for the proposed facility so
as to not exceed the capacity of the proposed
parking lot.If iti.determined by the Planning
Department that proqrllJllS "xceed the on-site
pIIrlting spaces.they shall be lIlOdified by the YMCA
in a manner approved by the Planning Department.
41.That a gate shall be required across the driveway
to "lose off the parlciIl9,:10t during the non-bu"i~
nesl!'hours.
'42.1'hat this use permit shall expire un).e.,,'exercised
'"itllirt'36"Dontbs frooa"the date i of awrov81,"s
'l!peci£ied'illiS~t1on 20,'1lO.09{)A of 't!ie,N~rt
Beach'MUnicipel:Code.",
ROLL CALL
July 9,19117
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Variance No.1140
l'lNDIllGS:
1..That there are exceptional or extraordlC11,U'Y
circumstances applying to the lan~,buildl,,,:!,aoo
......proposed i~.this application,which circ ......
stances and conditions do not genenlly apply to
lanC!,building,and/or u....s in the a""",dhtr1ct
inas=>ch as the YMCI.'a <JY1II'l"ai....requires apecifk
diJDensions and height thet do not apply to adja-
cent propertiea in the vicinity.
2.That the granting of a varUnce to the height
requirlll!leJ1t is neeesGar/for the preservation aoo
enjoy1llent of subatsntild property right"of the
applicant,inasau:h &s without the height,the
YMCAcould not offer proqr...necessary to sustain
i taeU and serve the COIIIIWIity.
3.That the establishllent,maintenance,and operatiCI'
of the uae,property,and building will not,under
the circumstances of the parti~lar case,ba
detriJDental to.the health,safety,peace,comfort,
aoo general welfare of perllOlls residing Or working
in the neighborhood of such propoHd WIfl or
cletrlMntal or injurious toproperiy and ieprove-
...nts"in,.the ~eighborhood or the ger.eral .....lfare
oftheC:i~.·,
COIlDITIONS :
1.Thatdevelopsent shall ba in substantial confor-
mance ..ith .the·approved plot plan,floor plans,
revia~d .ievationa and sectiOllS,excepl.as notedbalow.·..
2.That all applicable conditions of Use Penoit No.
1128 (_nded)shall ba fulfilled,
3.That the httight ofthef'Uapet walls shall.be
IWted to that required by Code,ill 42 inchea,
The proposed litairwells"s~lbe no higher ,J;llan
the approved height of thel;>arapet ...11s...
•••
Ager.da It"'"110......;;8:,:...-'-,;;....
CITY OF NEWPORT REACH
TO:Planning Commission
PROII:Planning Department
SUB.TECT:A.Use Permit 110.1128 l~~endedl (Public 1~.rl~-1l
Request to amend a previously approved use pe~it vhich
permitted the establishment of a YMCA facility in the
R-I District.The proposed amendment involves a
request to oonstruct a 44.564t sq.ft.wdition thst
includes youth and family ~itness facilities.agymnas-
tics center.a child care center.officeo,a community
meeting center and an illuminated roof top jogging/ex-
ercise area.The proposal also in,cludes a lOQ4ification
to the zoning Code so as to allow:a porU,,,,of the
proposed building.an enclosed trash area.4nd a 6 foot
high wall to encroach into the required 20 foot front
yard setback.a portion of the required parking spaces
to be compact spaces,and to allow two waU mounted
identification signs in excsss of 2 sq.ft.
LOCATION:
B.Variance No;ll40'(Publ1c Hearing)
Reqllul:t:ci'';li",,'alteratlons and additions to the
eXisting YMCA facility 'Which'will exceed,the'.w.~
allowable building height in the 24/28 Foot fReight
Limitation District.'
Parcel No.l'of"Parcel Map Ho.3-35 lap-subdivision 110.
2151.located 'at 2300 University Drive.on the north-
erly side of University Drive.easterly of Tustin Ave-
nue in the West Bay Area.
ZONE:
NtlVport Costa Mesa.YMCA
OWIIER:Same'l!!I'applicant'
Applications
These applications involve a request to amend a
use permit which permitted the:-1District.The :::~'-:~:l;~::
2l Acceptance of an Initial Study and lIegative ll<lclaratioll as
having be.en prepared in coeplian"e ..i th the California
El\virolllMntal Quality Act CCEQA),the 'State CEQAGuide-
lines"andClty policy 11:-3.
3)The approval of an uiendlllentto tlse Pemit 110.1126 eo a8 to
allow the eo!l~~~tion ()f a 44,S64±lIq.ft.addition thet
inc1udad YOUth'iandfuUyfitnus ..facilities •.lIqyl1U>4"tics
center,II..'::hi1dcar~.eenter~offices,II·cOllllllUnity'meting
center,alld IIn'illiminatedrooftopj09<Jing/exercillearell.
'l'he.proposlllalso included modifications to the Zoning Code
so as to.allow a portion of the proposed building.a new
truh enclosure,andaaile foot wall to encroach into the
requirad 20 ..foot front··yard set:b&ck,a portion of the
required parkinq spaces to be cOl!lp&Ctspaces,and to allow
two ..all mounted identification signs in e"cess of 2 sq.ft.
communitymeeting center and an illuminated roof top jogging/eMercise
area.The proposal also includes:a variance to allow the 41teratinn~
and additions to exceed the maximumallovable building height:in U~0
24/28 Foot Height Lim:ttation District:a modification to the Zcnil'v:1
Code so as to allow a.portion of thf'!proposed buildintJi an enclonuli:
trash area and is.6 high foot wall to encroach into the r('.(i\Jire~l 20
foot front yard setback;a portion of the required ~arkinq ~pacee to
be compact spaces,and to allow two ..all ~unted ~dentificat!on ai~ns
in excess of 2 sq.ft.Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter
20.80 and variance procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.B~of the
Newport !l<IachMunicipal Code.
Background
At its meeting of Hay 5,1983,the Planning C.,..ission approved a
proposed expall"ionc.of the existinq lIewpert Costa Mesa YMCA (th"n
called the Orange Coast 1IIICA).Said action included th"approval of
the following applications,
1)Acceptance of II Traffic Study prepared pursuant to Chapter
15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("~raffic Phalling
Ordinance")and City Poliey 5-1 (MAdministrative Guidelines
for I~lementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance").
4)'!'he approval of varia,nce 110.1098 to allow a portion of th.
proposed addition to exceed the maximue allowable height in
the 24/28 Foot Hei¢1t.Limitation Dist:d.ct.
ill accordance with sections 20:80.090,20.61.090,and 20.82.090 of the
cMt\nicipal Code"use pemits,D!Odifications &J\d·vari_s aUtolrtlltically
·e"pire after.24.~ths frofll·tlie effective dat.of·aPPrQv<ll if a
)JUildinq permit lias·not been·!sBU4Idprior to tlWl eXpiration !late and
subsequently construction is dl1ici<mtly punuod'to'<lOOIpletion.
Ina .....ch as no building parmitll were is,,~fo:l:t!'w.project,witllin 24
"clOOnthll,~f,,the .'iI.ff,!<;:!:l'j'lldJI.teOf,lipprWlll for UI«t I'IU;lIllt.110 •.11211
C","",nd4!d),vai:-iinCetto~'1096 Ma.nlAtea·1lIo41neat;i<:>ui.;,.ilL,:IlWliea-..ti()fts ex i ritd.C'n Ksy 27,.1 .......).
Tel:Commis51on -3..
The ilpprov(>o Traffic:Study will expire on D~cem.ber 101 }()fj"i'unless
f';.o".t"Tl'li.t~have not.br.p.n issued .J.no construct ion begun on th(~pro;:H)":.i:d
d~ve 1opR»::nt prior to that.date.Attached for the PI an~d hfJ C-orr.mis-
r:;ion'5 information is an excerpt of the Planning Comrniutdon l'foinatefj
fOT Us~Permit No.1128 (Amended)and Variance No.]09~.~atej
April !J,1993 and May 5.1993.
Rnviron~ental Significance
In conjunction with the Planning Corrrnis5ion's considerattf,m of the
previou~Use Permit No.1129 (Amended)and variance No.1098.an
Initial Study was prepared and it was determined that th~project
would not have a significant environmental impact.Bas~d upon the
information contained in the Initial Study and suggested mitigation
....asures.the Planning Commission accepted a Negative Declaration for
the previous project.
Ina"",uch as tlJere have been no chanqes in the subject project and
further that there are no siqnificant environmental impacte re"ultinq
from the current project that were not i;"onsidered in tilt;preVious
rnitial Study,no further enviro:uaenta1 Tcview 1s requir~d at t.his
ti ....and the preVious accepted envirorunental document shall apply in
this caso.A copy of the previous envlronm~ntal document 1Mnttached
for the Planninq CommisFion's information.
Confor1llllneewith the General Plan and the Local Coastal Progr"m
The Land Use Element of the General PIan and the Local Coastal Program
designate the site for "Gover""",ntal,Edu"ational,and Institutional
Faeilitie~"u""s.The existinqYMCA cOlliplelC On the property in
question fa1l8 within theus'"""""1"itt"d.
Subject property and surrOUndinq~nd Uses
;e:":;;;~',coasta~sa,yMtA';OIIIPJ.~",iS loeated'on the site.The
existing development is constructed on a padapprdximately 15 feet
above the adjoining properties.To the northeast is the Anniversary
Estates sinqle family residential ~evelopment,to the southeast is an
office complelC,to the,""utbw"'lIt,,aer"ss ,the,University Drive
right-of-way,is VlIclIntpropertY/,and,to the nortmiest,across a 28
foot wide alley,is an attached multi-family residential area.,...."....'....,..-..,"',-"
Analysis
Th"applicant is nOWpipp<>~in",t."ci""t~n ...eWi~li the project and has
requested consideration of,a'llew !'lIe,P<>rmit andv~rianc8.'!'he proj-
ect,as reflected in the'new aPPlications is identical to th~previous
projectapprovecl.,.by:.,.tb.<!!'1~nnin9C~issi"n on MayS,1993.Said
project consists of.a .4~,S~4tSq~f~.~x~~"sio"of th~e"illtinq.lS,769±
sq;ft,,YMCAfacilitY"Th'"a~ditici"viII'inC'l"deyoutband f ....ily
.fitness facilitles "a q~~atics,c.lrltl>r.achl1d care center ,officl>s,•••••.'~il~:::;~~~::~.~jtl~,,~!inq;;<;tlj\ttil''andanillw.inated roof joq-
TO:..~an'nllngC""""ission -4.c•
La'"SIZF.:175,677!sq.fto
BlJIWING SP.TBACKS:Required Propl')~~~
Front:20 ft.min.B ft,:.(at corn(~,..
of WCfit addition)
S1d"s:4 ft.29 ft.and 47 ft.
Rear:10 ft.lISt it;.
BUILDABLE AREA:lS8,35lt sq.ft.
2 x BUILDABLE AREA,
(permitted in the R-1 District)
316,702!sq.ft.
EXisting Structure:
cast Addition:
West Addition:
15,769 sq.ft
14,380 sq.ft.
30,184 sq.ft.
PROPOSED GROSS STRUCTURAL AREA,60,333~sq.ft.
TOTAl.60,333 sq.ft.
FLOOR AREA RATIO:.38 x buildable axea
PARKING:
Proposed:181 spaces (142 standar~spaces,3S compact spaces,
4 handicapped spaces)
il"qiIired:See aetails below
BUILDING HEIGHT:
Permitted:29 ft.24 ft.
Proposed:See details below See details below
proposed Encroachments into Required Front Yard Setback
The applicant'isaltlo ,1'equelItinqalDOdification.t<>.t:he Zonin\iC<><!e80
as to permit variOu8'structural.enC1:oach....ll):sint!'tl\..'r~qu!~ed 20
foot front yard setback adjacenttoUniverlli):YDriy~."SIli~'ei,,:roach-m<!llt"include:.a lIllIaU portion of the westerly additlori.d.ich en-
cr~ache~to within 8fellt oftbe frontpl;OpertY,11n81 a trash enclo-
sure that i,"cro~ches to within,6.feet .of.the f,rc>ntl'~operty line;and
a6 foothiqhwaU that.en"roachesto.'withill~:f(>et of the front
pr'operty line;"Statf ,hUM objections toth~~c>I'C>~ed ..ncroachments
inasmuch as they are minor in nature and will notpl~k any views fromadjacP.nt .
CommiBr.>ion -5.•
Proposed Idp.ntificati.o-n Logos
Two 50!:sq.ft.logos depicting a fly"are proptJ50:.'d to be inntilllf:(l on
thp.front and westerly side walls of the wegt addition of UH:-L''H;ility
wherf~only a 2 sq.ft.identification sign is permitted in th~.?R-l
Di.strict.Staff feels that the propo!:cd signs are rc<~!;onilhlf!for the
institutional use on the site.However,staff feels that th~rdc:;na
should not be illuminated,so ag to be more compatible to the
adjoining residential USf!S to the northwest of the site.
Variance Request
The applicant is again requesting approval of a variance so as to
allow a portion of the proposed addition to exceed the maximumallow-
able height in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Oistrict,As shown on
the attached elevations and sections,the highest portion of the
proposed west addition will be the parapet walls around the rooftop
jogging/exercise area.The "",ximum height of this portion of the
structure is 35t ft.above existing grade (see Section B on Sheet No.
A-4 of the attached plans).Other portions of thE proposed addi~ions
will exceed the maximum !",mitted height as well.To assist the
Planning Commission in identifying these areas on the submitted plans,
staff has prepared the following table which sets forth the various
building heights !tnd the corresponding locations of each portion of
the building as shown on the a~tached plans.
Portion of Building Sheet No.Haight
GYl1\nasium Sheet 4A,Section A &B Varies 33 ft.-
35 ft.to top
of parapet.
Multi-Purpose Room Sheet 4A ,e Section A 20t ft,eto top
of paraPet:
30ft,Jllverage}
to midpoint of
insulated sky-
lights.
Recketball Courts Sheet 4A,Sec'tion C 28t ft.to top
of parapet.
'rheceZoningCode requires that in order to grant any Varianee.the
e pl"l'l"ing cMin~gi:ionlllUst!i1ld th ..ttheapplicOlnt h....established the
gr"uridsfor eairarian6l!set'forth'ine Chapter 20.82 (Section 20.82.020
ofth;"N~wpoit:seaCh'MllnicipalCOde).,-"-<':.,',-.;,'."-.'."-;"",
That ~h"reare exceptional oreextra<>rd,illary ~l,r?;';';~~ances
"applyin9'to land,building,,or use ref ....redetoin'theappli-
'cation,'"hichCircumstances or eOllditi9nsd~,not'applygenerallye'to ;land i buildings,,and/ore uses h the sam«<11&-'trict."eC'eeee
';")e,,,ej',,eee e
TO'......man,,!Commissio...-6.
2.That the qranting of the application is r.~c(~t'HJary fr)r the
preservation and enjoyment.of substantial profnI"t.y riqht8 ~)f
the applicant.
).That the qrar~tin9 of such application will not,undftr the
cirCUfCStanceli of the particular case,be I'!'Vitor fa]1'l
detrimental to the health,safety,peace,comfort,and
general welfare of persons residing or worldNJ I...the
neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not
under the circumstances of the particular case be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property
improv......nts in the neighborhood.
Applicant'"Statements of support
The applicant has "ubmittad the following stat.ements In sUpPort of
this application.
Hardship involved?
The property is irregularly shaped and alig~nt of new expansion
with existing facility requires one corner of the qymnasiumto
project into front setback.The present R-l zone is """"",hat
unreasonable in its application to an institutional building,
especially regarding building height.
~lat exceptional circumstances applY to the property?
The requireddilllensiotls and hei'1ht.of"",.,9111a"ionsizeqymnaRiUl!l
are extraordinary ..to .theuse of .this property and do not'apply to
other R~l zoned properties and other properties in the·~ieinity.
Whyis a variance neces~~ri;to pre,,~~i pidisrtY'r19h~:~'
The heiqht and front sefu~';*'·~~~i6~clm..!ritc",n"ot:be teduc<!d in
sbe without .destrpying,,the ,~te'1r.ity .of the proposed use.
\oathout thedevelO[UQnt of ,these'fac,ilities the YMCAprogram
could not offer the.types of px;oqrlllU~requiredto sustain itself.
,;,,1,',..,
It 1&staff's ppini"n .tbatth.,requested heightvaiiance ill both
reasonable and warranted illulIluch l\sth~proposed a.dditions collid
not reasonably be plal:e4~()nptherporl:ions of the property
'withoutdso exceedin'1the ...U"",ab.le .hei911t limits...rtshould
al"o be note4 that the reQuired4iDiensions·arid'heights of a
regulation .slze:'JYIllIasJ.umaree1ttr4,Ord~ary"c:>the use.of this
property a.nd .do,not jIIpply,.toa<Jjac'mt.P/lrcG!s•.''!'he .proposed
structure 'isl1lso located Iltle~t~rf~"t fX;otn the,Oie~tedy side
property line and the adja.::ent resident:ial.~el'elOplllent to the
northwellt is separated from the sit.e by an'exlstiri"falley;
Off-Street P~rking
TO:Commission -7.
It is sta:ff'sopillionthatthellumher of parking spaciis is adequate
for the ..propos!,dex~ansion,provided that the applicant monitors its
programs in th!,YMCJ(~?'as n?tto exce&dthecal'lllcityof,tlu!parking.
The numb'erof cOmp"act:",pace·s·'(19\)iaalsoconsistent witb,the other
similar,requests that have been approved by the Planning Commission.
'::,~',:,,',::,:,",""':',,,<':~(.--:,;":'-;':',:(',','i:-:::';,,~',""~'",'--:--,':",''''',:':"'~''-:''
the YMCAstaff,the gymnasium,offices,the mUlti-purpo~~roum,and
other facilities wilt never be occupied to maximumoccupancies at thl:'!
same t.ime.
In conjunction wit.h the consideratlon of the 19B3 applicE.:tion of One
Pennit No.1128 (Amended),the YMCAstaff had submitted "r.,th"r
extensive parking survey for the existinq facility.The llo1rking
survey indicated that the maximumnumber of cars parked "t an hourly
average occupied at the noon hour,was approximately 5\i autOfl\()bilen.
Although these parking figures are over four years old,the YMCAataft
have indicated that its membership has remained relatively the Sl>1l\e
since 1983 and thllt the previous'parking deJDandfor the facility has
not changed significantly.staff has recentlyvisit",d the site on
several occasions,including visits during the noon hour,and it Is
our opinion that the figures included in the ..previous parking study
are reasonably representative of the current parking situation on thp.
sUbject property (see attached copy of 1983 parking stUdY).
As shown on the attached site plan,t,he awlicant is proposing 181
on-si te parking spaces in conjunction with the propo6cdcxpaneion.
Said parking plan includes 142 standard spaces,35 compact spaces and
4 har.di-capped spaces.This is the salT'"number of parking spaces
previously approved by the Planning commission.The City Traffic
Bngine"r has inoicated ar.additional handicap parking space be
provided on-site.He has also suggested that the proposed compact
parking spaces be redistributed within the parking lot to his
satisfaction.
Specific.F'indinqs and Re~<>IIIIIendati~n
.,,-Scction20.80.060 of ·the ltetiport'Seach Hunicil'llll'Code provides that in
ordcrtogrant"ny u!le pe""'it;·.the Planning.Commissionshall find that
the establishment,maintenance';oroperationcof theusc or bui1dJng
.applieclf"r w.ill rIot,.~~d~r th.~circumstances of the particular case,
l>e detri",ental.·to.c the~E!lilth;Cs~te'ty,peace~_al ..,comfort,and
general,welfare .~f.!'!'r80~s •t"sidL"tg or working.'in the neighborhood of
such pr'1PP~ed··~se ·'C>r .be.det:rir.entd i 'orinjurious ,.to property and
improvement~:inth~neighbOrhoOdor ,the'general welfare o~.the City.
c"',,'",''';'',''''",,",',",",',-',""',:,••
5t"ffrec""",,~nd~t:Il;'~#~x,-.>V"'l·OfUSep<frmi tHo .1122 •JAml>nded)and
Variance ff'?,"J14~··"ndsuggest ..that'the 'Planning·Commissiont"k"such
acd'1Il."wi-~th;'nndin~sand8uIijeet:to the'c"nditions.8et forth in
the ,attached Exhibit'"Ii";'
'1'0,
Attach ....nh:Exhibit '"A"
Vicin1t:y Hap
Information submitted by the Applicant
Parking Study
Previously accepted Environmental Docunent
Excerpt.sotthe Plarminq Consission Minutes
dated April 21,1983 and Hay 5,1983
Plot Plan,Floor Plans,Elevations and sections
EXHIBIT -1\"
FIIIDIIIGS AND CO!IDITIOItS ,0.',APPROVAL
FOR USE PERMIT NO.1128,IAl!EllDEllI
AND
VARIANCENO.1140
A.U....PemitHo.1l28,IlYMnd6d1
FINDINGS.
1.Tl"Jatthe proposed use is consistent 1I1th the Land
Use Elellents of the General Plan and,the Local
Coastal Pr~am,and is compatible with surround-
in'}land uses.
2.That the proposed,nlllllber of"<:<lI'lp&ct,cars1*ces
eonstit"!;!s 19 pe1."c(tntof,the,parlcill9 re<iUlrellents
lIhichi ..withi~limits qenerally ~cceptedbythe
Planninq COftmission relative to previous sailar
applications.
3.That the proposed use of compact parkinq spaces,
the front yard encroaca-ents and propo~identi-
fication siqna will not,under the cirC\lllUltances
of the this particular ease,be detrimental to the
health,safety,peace,COIlfort,and general
welfare of persons r.asidin'ij or workin'ij in the
neiqhborhood of such proposed UIIS or be detri-
mental or injurious to property and l.llIprov_nts
in the nei9hborhood or the qeneral welfare of the
City tlnd further thet the proposed lIIOdifications
are consistent wit1l.the le<Jislattve inblnt of
'litle 20 of this Code.
That·thG'Project willCOlllply with al1aWl1cable
City and state Build1n<;JCodes and Zoriin9 require-
_nte for new bUild1nq applicable to the district
in lIhich the proposed project is located,except
those items requested in conjunction with the
proposed lIIOdifications.
That the project lot size confoms to the ZoII nq
Code area requir_nts.
s.
6.
-''::~,,;r
,:~<;i~l';:
-'-'if'2
-"';'-~-h'
8.Thatbuedon the in~orN'tion contained in the
previous Initial ,Study and./feqative Declaration.
the project incorporates sufficient mitigation
measures to reduce potentially siqnificant en-
vironmental effects,and that the prcject will not
result in significant environmental impacts.
9..Thalt the approval ~fl1"".Permit No.1126 (I\JlIend&<l)
will not,'under,the cirCWllsi:ancesof this case b"
detrimental to the health,safety,P'!'ac..,morais,
COIIIfor.t'and.qeneralwelf'l}';e o~.,'persons residing
and working inthel\eighborhood or he detri_ntel
.orinjudous.to,prorerty ..or improv_nts in the
neighborhood or the 9~!\~a{welfare of the City.
COIll>I'fIONS.
1.That development shall be in suhstl>ntial confor-
unce'with the approved plot plan,floor plans,
elevationsand sections,except as noted below.
2.That all IIlfiIchanical equipment and truh areas
shall be screened froB University Drive and
adjoiningp~rtil!!s •.
3'.'that'all:·iJoproV_t.s b<l.constructed as required
by OrdirilUlCe:and,!:hl!!,I1ubUcWorksDepartlllent.':·:·:,>:i,,',i'",".
4;,That vehicular "eeesa.be.prOVided to the exillltinq
'stci,nvclrain 'US818ll11t.A!'~SS ro.!ld located at the
nOt'tbeastel'ly CiOJ<'ner'.of",the pucel to the satis-
'faotton,oe :1:hePUqlic iII9~S.Dep&rtlllent.
S."'~~th~'~~si~~;;~hi~l;u.and pedestrian circu-
lation'syste18&))e.·subjeet·to ,further review by the
Public Work.,Depart18ent,including the design of
the propDlHld"""ice driveways.
~--:_--)---:::"::-
,-:;":":',-:::>-',<
;-:::':,;.
i~!:W:::--/"
6;'That 'prior"to'the ocpupancy of the proposed
',prbjeeti'•the,',ou;culat1on &yst_improv_nts
delicribed :l.n the ~r;alficStudy dated April,1983
on"P£lge;,10'"prepared"by JEll'Engineering,Ine.,
'shall 'have',been",a~ished unlOlls subsequent
""'pro:lect,,~vals ~re modifications thereto.
,"(Tha"ulu-:t&.,design,of •.the intersection shall be
'!i\ibj«t\to'the ..~"'al of the city Traffic
Engineer)."..'-'.<.;..:'/i>,":_'.',_:,':.:'"'.....','...:.'...:..-','-,'.\.>':.:,....:_':>_..::,",'_:,,:::'::.?:'.:,:."0--'":'".:.,,":'....'.:':':,',:,',:":>,,,",_;",'
1:'"Ths1:!1:he,GlCis1:inq.,deteriollAtGd drive lIpron and
"'9111:_.'Oft."IIm;'.~,iI~J;yDriv"frontage be re-,'~1~,,~,''igi~ltlt pemu by the,
,Public ,Work
£to That prior to the issuance of a building I»rmit.
theapplicarit shall~nstrate to the "..thfac-
tion of 'the Planning Department and the Public
!fork..Department,tMt sewer facilities wHl be
available for the proJect at the ti"",of occu-
pancy.
9,.That arrangements be made with the Public Works
Department to quarantee satisfactory completion of
the public i~royements.
10.~ata IIUlsterpl.n of sewer.water and stOrtli drain
f"ciUtiesbeprepared,andapproved by th'"PubUc
Works'Department ,prior "to issuance of any buildinq
peX1lit:S.
11.Development of site shall be subject tOil qradinq
);Omit to be approved l>y,thelJuildinq and Planning
Departments.','
12.That a grading plan.if required,shall lhC'lude II
complete plan for~'porary and permanent drainaga
facilities.to minulize any potential Lmpacts from
silt,debris,and other water pollutants.
13.The qradinq 'pemsitahall,,!nclude,if required.a
description of haul routes.acease points to the
site,i watering,land cl1weepingprogram delliqned to
Il!!nfiiize ,iJIpa(:t,of haul operations.
-.,..-'c_
14.'An erosion',sUtation and dus~control plen.if
,requiAll.'shall,be'lJUbeoitted and be subject to the
,ilppi:oval,~f the'BuiJ,dinq Department and a copy
,llba):l,'be"forifa%lle4",to ,the Califomia lIeqional
,Wate~Quality Control sOard,Santa Ana !leglon.
15.'The'velocity ,of ,concentrated'run-off from the
project'shan,be eyuuated and erosive yeloeities
eontrolledu ,pu1:'of the project design.
16.'That grading sbaUbe oonducted in 4ccordance with
"~lan.preparedi by ,,'a ,Civil Enqineer and based On
reclcillliiGndati-:m1lof,'fa,~£l engineer and an engi-
iieering'feOloqut subsequent tel tha cOtl!Plation of
,,Ii 'canpi:ellltnsive 'aoUw,qeologic investigation of
,'thei"'.it:ll~e'_t:,repro<lUcible copies of the
i '"lIpPro\red'as,'lIUilt!'qrlldu-q pl!'ns on sundard size
,.b'.~s"shall be fln'/lisllad to the lIUildin9 nepert-
lII"nt.',
l7:~i '1'ha1:'eJ:O.iOft/control ..lljIure!J shall be done on any
,eXpo.'ed'.10111 swit:h!l1'-t!Iirty clays after gra4inq or
'1iS,'iI~~l':'.~~~~Enqineer..',.,••,......'.
18 •..A landscape and.irdgation pian for the project
..hall be prepared by a licensed landseaT""archi-
tect.'fit..landscapepl.<!n shall ir,tcgrate ..nd
phase the installation of landseapll,q "'i th the
proposed construction schedule.(Pfl.or to the
occupancy of any structure.the licen""a landscape
architect shall certifytc.the Planning Department
that thell!ndscaping has ,been inst"U«l in accor-
.dance with the,preparedplanl •
19..The.lalidscilpe.plallshal1,be subject to the review
of.tile,Park .....Beach,..arid RecreaU<>ntleparteent
.and appro"alQfthePlanll1ng Departeent.
20.The l~pe:~l~~h~llinclude I,lIlaintenance
'Pr<l'Jr;llll""'icb ,controls;t,he use of fertilizers and
pesticides •.
21.The landscape p~n ~h~hplace heavy emphasis on
the use of drouqht-renistant native v~etation and
be irrigated ",i th a systelll designed to avoid
surface runoff and over~",atering.
22.The landscape plan shall place heavy CIIIlPhasison
fire-retardant vegetation.The final landscape
plan shall be designed so as to intensify the
land"capill9',for .screening purposes.adjacent to
,:the ,l\nn1"erllllry Laris'Tt;,oict;'and to increase the
waU,An4landsaapill9','at:the northwesterly comer
of the site where tile foot traffio if:occurrinq.
,·,so:..to.preCluda,persons from qdnill<J aCCeSSat
.>-:.),.;"'.',tb$.._c2!~~t;i~~.;,.....'"','.'
:-:'.';'-,:-.'_-:'~:':-~>;,;«._::-:,;>;;:l.~"J;--',::>~,?j~L;:':'-~:~''--"__",:'-._,,',.--,,';...-'
,23.Landscaping shall'lie r~larly lII&illtain<!'5,free of
,'weeds:snd,del:u"l.s.,Allcvegetation .11 be regli-
,larly:tr.t.n..ed 'at..!'J(epi"in /i'healthy condition.
,..,.".".''--".-....,'",.,'"-,,-...:".
,;'-:,-'
:24.,Tba~,:l!ny roof,tpp,or,,other mchanical equipment
"shall """'.o.~1ld at?,n~ted 'in such II ...nner as to
,jlQhieve:II 1ItA,~sou,l\d level of 55 -IDA at the
proI'8rty line.
'f·.:~-;;~,,-~(.'~_;~:_:'::-i,~'_-7 ,'!?~o:.;<:,'y-,.,;':..:,'i',;_';-"',':'.
25."Tha.t.,any J!Il!<?hat!icaLeiNi",,"nt and _rqency power
,q~llJiatp"'ll,s~lr~:screened frOlll view and noise
ASlIOCiatedwith Said installations shall he sound
,'i .,at~,u;'~~,~~c"ptab~leY;IlIs in receptor areas.
i The lattl!!1':lIJ1#l::tie:,n..~upOn the reeOllllll8fldat1ons
of a licensed engineer,or a prot ..",,,1onal engineer__,."",-,.c,'",·.<'",'.,_""".,_',''practicing in aCoustics.and be approv<!'5by the'"""Pl~1p9)ew;~;~::u;,,;j ,
Tl:uat:I'll buUdings on·the project,site
a<!U1P11lG"e,"1~:t~~ppre~S10nSysteM '
C""'i"-
27.That all access to the building be approved by the
Fire Department•
28.That fire vehicular access,including the proposed
planter'islllnds ,shall 00 approved by th..Fire
Department.
29.Final de'sign of theprojecl:shall provi4e for the
ineoi-p<)rati6riof wlll:er-llavillgdevices for project
lavatories'and other water-using facilitle8.
30;Thatt:hE\'lighting'ayst:elllwlthln the strueture and
ill the off-etreet PG*ill9 lot shall be Gesigned
'and maintained'in such aunner as to concell1 the
li'ilht s<>Urceand"to lOinilllize light spillage and
qlare ,~~the ad:lecentirelltdential usos.'1'he plans
sh411bepreparetillndlligned by a Lic<ll'lsedZlec-
tricalEnqineen'with a "letter fr"'"the Enqineer
stating that,in h18 <>pinion,this requir""",nt hag
beefl'Jilet••'
31.That the final desi9n to,-the parking area be,approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
32.'1'hata,lIIini_of,181 pilrking spaces be provided
,on'-lliite at all 'tillil!f.
'33.Th~t t1te1i:lCat:ioit0f the compact parking spaces
"'iI,#ll'~,re.tiatribtitedwithin the parkinq lot to
tb.'liati.fii~fohof,the'City Traffic E~ineer.
:"',"-..:,-,-,,_._,:'-0'",-.;...-,•...;.."",'.',.-'0
34;'1'Ii4t'-fiv.'~1caP ~rICing spaces ghall be pro-
vided on-aiu,'\lnlellfl'otherwige pemitt9d by the
,Jl.u~di?g,p,e~~~~""
-,35.''That:'a iaUfiai..df-19\t'(35 spacesl of the parking
oil":.itit 'My be ccoaPactpsrkinq spaces.
_r;v,,,,,.driveways-shall be subject to!:~;~~;~~:;~:~:a~~::~~aloftheCityEngineer
40.It shall be tMresponsibility of the YMCA to
IllOnitor its prO<Jr4lllSfor the proposad r"'''ili ty so
as to not eX.,..,dthecapacity of th ..proposed
parkill910t.If it isdete .....ined by ',h..Planning
Depar1:lllent that prograllll!axceed th<>on-sit"
parkingspaces,th$yshall be modifie<!hy the YMCA
in a manner approved by the Planning O@pac1:lllent.
41.That a gate shall be required across the driveway
to close off the parking lot during the non-busi-ness hours.
42.That this Use permit sha.ll expire unll.l!lllexercised
within 24 1IIOIIth"frOl!l the date of approval as
specified in Section 20.BO.090 A of the NewportBeachMunicipalCode.
Variance No.1140
FINDINGS:
1.That>there are eXceptional or extraordinary
cirClllllSt&ncesapplying to the land,building.and
use proposed in this application.which cirCUlll-
stances and conditions.do not generally apply to
land.building.and/or uses in the same district
ina-.uch as the YMCA'sqymnasiua requires specific
dilllensions.and height that do not apply to adja-
cent properties in the vicinity.
~tii~e'l1"atlting \cifavll~i.ance.'.'.t(>·Ythl>.i••h~i9l1t
·rf!'lUi.1-~t.~sllec(l~lIary ~orth(lPl:'e~ilt;'onand
.~lIjoymelltof"l.lbstalltialpropertYri9l1ts of the
applicant •.inaSlllUchas without the h$ight.the
YIlCAcould not offer proqr8llls necessary to sustain
itself and serve the community.
2.
3.That the establishment .....intanance.and operation
of the1llle.pr0Ptlrty.ahd bUildintJ will not,under
the ...cirCUlllStances of the.particular case.be
detl'illlental~.i:heheal th •safety.peace •comfort •lll'ld.genel:'aliwclfare of persons resi<l!nqor working
.tntne neigbbol:'hood..'Of such.pt'0p<:>sed•.us...,r
detrilaental or injurioUli .topr0P(lJ:'tYlimd.iMprove-
Mnts,in .the nei'1hbOrhoodor thIB g"nei-al.welfsr"of the City.
CONDITIONS I
COOIIlission-15.TO:
3.That the height of the parapet walla shall be
11miteu to that requir ..d by Code.is 42 inchea.
The proposed stairwells shall be m,higher than
the approved height of the parapet wall •.
2.That all applicable conditions of UOi.Pennit No.
1128 (Amended)shall be fulfilled.
...~~._-+----!~..
r--...---i'ci-"
I
I
(
II!
,-·t ,;t t '.•k .i
ill,•"-....~'.\••,·•.:-II II ,•••..••r;'~!;•,hi;f .,I I
~l;.!i':;:U jiit ...",.'I ~itd.ijtl ..~l ;!i~'ji1 ..
-~,-:;iiinl~l;~'ib~...ll~i dil!;!~,
~':;::~:';....J I:...~I I '--,,.!H"I '-I ••,.,i'•
ORAIIGF.COASTYMCA'
FACiliTY F.XPANSIOH,
PROGRAMDEFINATIOH
I
The Orange Coast VHCAseeks to add 45.000 square feet to its existing 16,000 square
foot facility which is located at 2300 University Drive,Newport Beach.Here below
are listed the program spaces along with program defination.
GYHNASUIM -pri~rly to house existing programs such as aerobic fitness which is
offered five tlmes"lId;jy,c:lO the outdoor slab;ski fi tness offered twice a week;
men's basketball.offerl!d twJce a week at noon and other times court Is vacant;
youth phyiscal,edli~adf.!r'offered after school;'VilA league for chi ldren currently
offered six daysa"!,,eeki,nafternoons.Gyronasui ..would allow us to serve our pre-
sent members wt,t~I:,cOc)cer!1 for weather which causes class loss and incO<Oe loss.
GVMNASTICCENTER -would take the lace ofo"r lobb located multi-r e room
in which we offer movement education or children 3 months and older;gymnastics
for older children;self defense,judo,Karllte for adults;ballet and da~e classes
for chlldrell and adults.
FOUR RACQUETBALLCOURTSwould allow the YMCA
and allow for more youth tl~on the courts.
and tournaments on a regular basis plus some
to retain more of it~existing members
We would also be able to offer leagues
new programs such as walleyball.
TWOHEWLOCKERROOMS would ailow us to provide seperate change room and shower
facilities for our existing members based on age and sex.Currently women and girls
have one locker facility and men and boys have another.Seperate facilities for
each of the four groups would be provided.,
WEIGHTROOMthis new room would replace the 'existing facility wt,ich would be turned
into a maintance center with shop equipment.The new facility would house CAMII
and olympic weight room equipment.
P.E.STORAGE(,OFFICE SPACEwoold be usedito house existing staff;,nd store existing
equipment.Some new equipment for gymnastics would be required.'
TWOP.L AREAI1EETIIIG ROOI1SadJacer.t to the Gym and pool area would house meeting~
of existing grollps such as scuba Classes,'life saving classes,He~lthy Back.lead-
ership training'near the facility of use rather than in the chap"'!Of>red rOOlit.
..";~.'
MEW'S FiTNESS CENTER a new f"ci Ii ty f~r ()ur 320 men'fitne~stellter RlOOlberswhile
women would use the el<istlng facll I ty.lloth groups W()uI':!lIaj,0611cccss to thei'r
center will Ie the YMCAIs open rather than,on I iml tedtime'l;lasl$>We would have a
'shared exercise aree and el<erclse equl'i>me/lt."..',','
'!,HUm-PURPOSE ROOI1for large grout meetiJ.istha~at'e~fteJlIl.k;heldo"t door~or in
a stuffEtd lobby area.Room would aJsobe:available for AYSO,Boy$couts,etc'to use.
",'-,';:.-.-':.:
if.'"J",_,"',_",'..,::;KITCHEN to replace lll<lstlng kitchen fac:1 Ijl tv with largll"mor.functional food service
;)11~ellar@ti~"a~1'~~~¥.J.c~.fafl,Hty~,We would~1<able ,to prepare mea1:l.and snacks for
."",:~$o,~~)~}~~{'~~~r~:~Y'~,~~V~.,.)~~;~',~.~I de '{I!f,~,.,!.!!,{~ght,;~,::)~C,\
;FAI'\ILV CRISIS CENTEROFFICES t;'house'ellfstlng'sta hY;'eurren'tt","cSWted at
I r II osta;.lICs ••nd!·~llIresult III .:reductlf,1i1 alldout ,i;trl'','"J.'e,lci '!ital'fl,',,'_.'('c,·,:··...;,·'.-".~;-',,';:"',',.",
re
\•page 2
HEEiiNG ROOHS £,STAfF OFFICES to house existing staff and to "rovid"additional
space for groups which currently Meet at the YMCA.Currently our parent-child
program l~adership groups meet at the Y,often tighly s~heduled around olher meet-
ings In the same two rooms,i.e.healthy back class.
NURSERY
meeting
class.
outdoor
The YMCA currently hos over 12,000 member/participants on an annual basis partici-
pating In a variety of classes,organized programs and drop In activIties.lie see
addltltonal participants In such things as aerobic fitness classes,but basically
from our existi",memberShip/participants.The new participants will ~ellerate in-
come to pay for acilities and staffing costs.
The amount of time that a person might stay at the YMCA would Increase as more
programs are offer"d,but we do not see the same person mak I fl9 more than one trip
per day to the YMCA.The av~rage length of stay would increase from I hour to
I hour ~O minutes.
The only facilities where we would have increase
current members
330
ISO
me~~rshlp in are
proposed membersIIso
"50
Hen's Fitness Center
Women's Fitness Center
TheYHCA fadlitles ~are crowded l1ClW,per our members.If expansion is not done in
t~e{f1ext 12~18 montlls,'ourmembershlp/par:ticlpat!on wi ,IIdrop from the 12,000 mark
b!'Cl<to themid~1970lsnumber of.6 to 7,,000 people ann}lally.
·TRAFFIC STUDY ~
DAILY LOG DIRECTION DIRECTION
TYPE OF VEHICLE FROH GOING
V'I 0
IU'"<>-V'I W .<>-....'"~0 0 0 V'I <0;...z V'I z V'I '"UU.....V'I ::>wV'I ........'"0 ...0...%V'I ......V'I ......VI ::>%U zN...<co co co co 0 <0;...'"0-'"'"%"'%%u V'I .......~'".....~'"...•<.......z :z :z z ...~>...0-...~~<0;<0;:0:...'"'"...'"'".........'"...
DATE 0 ::>0 0 '"'"...'"'"w ~>...0Iu...l-I--,-e 0 <<>-I-
TUESOfIY,FEIlP.UARY15.1983 212 96 308 ~58 128 107 73 105 122 81 428 H-0
IIEONESOAY,FEIlRUARY 16.1983 172 L04 276 403 112 102 64 95 116 70 3741 I/;6
THyRSOAY.FESRUARY 17.1983 477 13\119 9\105 :125 9S 480 I/;2
FRloAY,l'EIlRlJARY 18,1';183 113 '8'6 71·75 10\71 410!Ii 2
/'-"SATUROAY.FEIlRlJARY 1983 56:69.,.,2215 15 3/4•19.29 15 100 1 0
~
SUrlOAY,FEIlRUARY 20,1983 20 18 38 '39 13 15 9 12 15 10 62 H 0
MOIIDAY.FEBRUARY 21.1983 IIi 12 184 238 71 66 49 57 67 62 356 2 2
-~--
"Oft:'f./$!"GllsT ljJlf(/l ~rrK >1&01/.K"'j.'
Jf1.",o n 1'-...'O!?w~Jq,"rrA .r;
/{,,,t .(f)~A 1/tJ R f)~'&~'-}-N
~'
1/"".,":!JII',
/1,A1,6:0-0 3 12-,10 IS :;JK v,s C~"O ;;,k,
J;6"0 I :.3 S ~.~(17):l..J¥3 ",I I,"6':10
?'..."12..1°(IS If ,6 (f(),!i P s 'I e."'3,S'"')~0'<1
~?:''''L(6 ~'I ~f:(l7)7 I 3 "t I S.!J '{,I ..,~'1 0
t ',O'Q ')./12 II ;JZ '1 ;III (/~11..~I .::I.Jf.I 16 6..5 -;:06
'1':\0 7 /I S 'I :l.-I'{"g I)10 ~fI 5 ro &3 Ii",6•<t '.Co ;1..7 It:/9 10 ;to 11QS)P-It;.f(I 7 11;1.!16,tJ "t ~0'0
eno 17 ~.o II '7 {«,0(;1.?J I')"IA /;1..5,?n,5 1°,)..'l :,0,
"e~&}/5
......
\.../0:4 ,"Ie If{I').I~/0 ,I .,I~,).,10-'IO~O
1°:10 6 'I /0 S /0 I~~S)II ;a ~If '7 ~.11 'I.:',14 :Hl
II :00 II if(/7 ~"t 1~(3~I~~l?'3 :J 2 ¢"·r IO.y "~'f)
"'10 7 1 "}I)..lr II f36}7 'I :5 I .i If ¢7 ('?11:30
I\.b,,;I).:C4 1'1 '3 1'/~10 ·35:S-6'.IG'?-~e !>3 /0 ,'';1.).3 6";~1;t!4D AJ ..,.;
/1 :10 7 a-g-G 10 ,,"-1 (O S .,.'0 'I ¢~,.~G,'1~'14
I ~cc 3 7 ~o ,~f 9 :'31'.'J..'{~'.0 f'(:3 5 6 S ".'7 1 '.diJ
,:fa ~I{I7 5 /5 S '':.ti l'i ~/)..JIf 6 G 5"3 If,,I:~o
~':10 6 'I I'J."3 1<:1 'I .il:15 ~<f:'pi 3 'f 3 ','I g .1 2..~4&
~'1'~;1 ~7 7'6 (f(1),'6 5 ¢~,F,6;1(,'l{.'f .,.,~G
~,:~e':t (1 It 7 "(10)1°12-1'7 It P A;Gi 5.''1 ,./1~da
~J .,:u>3 l!I 7"/S 7 lf01)6 ;1 ,If ;l..:J.G $0.3 5.1 1:10•.l(!400 10 '1 ..,.•..§./'-'1/V,/)10 !13 1'1 I!~;'I 'I 7 '1,y .,~c"
I(I~It 6 7 7',I '6'(In f!s 7 {:l./;1 'C '3.'7 q.,"11t!J
'-(:<'t>1//3 If l'a\3·''1$(1'(1 {;",S 'I k !I /'1,'{1.'1 s ·,,0 .........
~~10 /If :1 q'?\/'~~'Ii 12-?16 /6'.,'I.((!'O
(..--e rT /0 12..'C'?;I').,)It 3 10 p,I{."'·7 C 't!o
6:~,t '1 I~7 IS ./p.;)I).¥.3 I~s.e 1f.'1 ~";,;.
,~1&00 I 8 I~7 9 't 1;1.<:»1'7 7 1"-6.....(1.7 :40"/~'1 /S ~/d 7 I'e'/~<l''8 ;f I('.6 !.'{'7'10,~~.t '0[.I '{9 '-~~~,<lO 'I 6 3.6 G.'eo :t)<l
~'~/?go "2-'I 'ic (2.':{!9 ~3 ;l.5.'(r'1CI.-
"C><,I 13 7 ;l..~.!)JJIS\,'1 I ¢(.({5.2".~·o,:,
'nc s P:'./;.'1 6.6 '1'.""I I'7 jd .ii.')i f (J/If,fJ g'p!;j1f/'1 ~/IS 11.7."IOleo
1-~)l..If.Ii>:..!.~..\'~~l·\i51'~
•';i:;,:.;~
-5''1"si
SO
'f'
11&
ljlt
u~
•
ROll CAll
MlNunsApril21,1983
t··Bea<.:h.
Traffic Study (Public He,,!ing)
Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with
a 45,000 sq.ft.addition to the YMCA fac!.Uty.
Items tk).
7.8an69.
Use Permit No.1128 (Amended)(Public Hearinq)
~equestto amend ..a previously approved Use permit that
permitted the establishment of a Y~tacility in the
R-l District.The proposed _n<!mentil>"request·to
construct ..45,000 ±sq.ft.addition that includes
'lcuth and family fitness facilities,a 9ymnastics
center,a child care center I officen,.1 COfrtmUnity
.eeting center and an illuminated toof top
jogc;ing/exercise area.The proposal also includes a
JIlQdification to the ZOning Code so as to allow a
portion of the proposed building,an enclosed trash
Area,and a 6 foot \Ian to encroach into the required
20 ..£00t front yard setback,a p<>rtion of the tequired
parking spaces to be <:olII£'ACtspaces,and to.allQW a
wall ""","tad.i<ientificationsign in .exceu of 2.sq.
f.t./and the aC9~ptarice of an environmental docu~ent.
ALL
CONTIIlUED
TO MAY
5,19B3
AND
Yariano"No.1.~9B(Pulilio He~drlg}
Requ"s~,to allow a portion of the I'rapos<ld addl tl on to
th"Oran'i!e Coast YMCAto exceed the maximumallowable
height in the 24/28 Foot HeIght Limitation District.
LOCATION,l'"rcel No.1 of ~arcell1ap NQ.3-35
(Reuubdivision NO.215)lcl",.tcod at·2300
University Drive;Oil the Ilottl!erly'side
of University D~ive;eamterlY 'of TUstin
J\venue in the \lest B,ly art'a.:
ZOllE,R-1
APPLICANT,Oranqe Coast XHCA'
S""'"as applicant
;.'
Ne"P')r Beach
ROll CAll
April 21,1SS3
Aqenda Items No.7,8 and 9 were heard concurrently,
due to their relationship.
The public hearing opened in connection ·.1th these
items,and Mr.James de Boom,becutive Oirt'H.:t.orfor the
Oranqe Coast YMCA,and resident of Nawpot:t Beach,
appeared,before the Commission.Mr.de Boom delivered
a slide presentation which depicted the various
proqr/lllllllwhich are offered by the Or~ng"Coast 'iMCA.
Mr~,de ',1loooI ,s~t:e<ltiu,t.th;<:urrent'£acUhy centa!ns
approld ....tely 16,000 square feet which lIervices
approximately 13,000 persons;He stated that the
objective of the prOposed expansion b·.to provide
additl'onal space to serve its current Dleri:Jersmore
adequately.He stated that he has the following
questions on several of the conditions listed in
Exhibit "A"for the use pemit approval:
Mr.de Boom referred to Condition 110.7,relating to
the '/chicular access to be prOVided to the existing
sto:pn dr.ain':eas4Hlen'taccess _road,,arid:asked if the
eXist~1'I9 parkin<]spaees at this location wHl be lost.
Mr •.i>ollAtd,Webb'City Engineer •.stated that vehicular
acce"lIito the stom drain is 'needed for "",inl:enanee
purpO~e";but that the oicldsting parkinq spaces ,",uld
oot be lost...
:.;',",.'..
Mr •.,<I"lloooI",ef""red t,o ConditionN<.'/.:6,telat.ing to
thereplaceMentof.thelleteriorated ill"iv":aprOn,and
stated that they feel that the respons1biHty Heswith
~idonwhichutili%ed heavy equipillCnt onth"drlv",",ay.
Mr.Webb .s,tat~that ,the Public Works Depart ....nt does
not care who replaces the drive apron and gbtter.as
10n9 as it gets replaced.
M:r'de~"',r ..ferred toc:onditionNo.25 ,relating totl1"~ire.suPl'reSlilion syst ....s.and "sked,what 49f!1lcy h....
~ntrol •"ve"•the sprinkler syste",..Planning Qirsetor
Hewiek~r st4t.edthat the Fire DepartMnt huauthOrity
over'the fire suppression systems to be utili~ed.'
Mr.de BoOlll referred to·Coooition 110.33,"hieh
prohibits,nightti_li9htin9 on the ruri"iJl9 trackl
exerciseatea,and "tilted·.that they ;are :deslrOj1s of
insta,llin9,knee-bl.gh walkway li9h~s.atoiloo thii inside
of th"traclt..'..
-39-
COM~April 21,1983 MINUTES'
t BeachCityof.,
ROltCAU lNQEX
Hr.de IloaIII stated that they vould 11J,"to be able to
utilize eh"track area until 10,00 p.II..<It th"latest.
Plannill9 Director H"wicker stat"d that the sUff "as
concemOOwith the.close prox"",ity of till.track ar"a to
the",surrounding ,residen~i.al area and tll"•.impactS which
the 'nighttime use of'th~track area may hsve upon the
surrounding residential area.
Chs1=an King ~s.k.."H it ~uld be possible topat.tern
the lighting on the track tei'not 'utend above the
parapet wall.,,Plan~lngDirector H..wieker'stated that
even if the light1ll<}is patterned in such :..manMr.
there will still be activity on the track durinq the
evenill<}hours,which My be offen.ive to the
surrounding residential area.
Planning Director Hcvicker stated that during the
SUIIIIlCrmonths,it reMins light until 9,00 p.m.He
stated that d,,:ring the winter months,it.get~dark IIUch
,earlier and is ..uch cold"r.Therefore,he stat.ed that
the ..easons candictate.hov late in the evening:the
tra('.lt c""IJe utilized,rather than insta1l1nq nighttimeliqhtill<}.'
Hr.deiloclllst~ted t~at the airport oWcfalehave
requ<istedtlia,~a,,?ftred li<;~t De itlstalled on,the
tOP.O;~~f •.p~anniri'iDire~tox:Hewicker statod an
aircraft varriitlqliqht wOuldb&acc"Ptablc.
,Hr •.&!13<"""referl'ed.e:'~~nditiOntl<i.34,prOhibiting
an M1Pl1fied paginqsystemin'any outdoor area,and
asked ,it a port,a,le public addre.ss.S15t.<....."'quld be
allow~for:,,theSat.ur:daYllOrninq "'Iim mcets.and dpring
the evanir~ir..the~MIPlire·circle'.Planninq Direc~or
Hawicker s~t84'thatC~nditionNO.34.eOuld,b~~1fied
to read,-Tliatno'permanent lllI1pHfieClpagirig 'syst.ems
shall be permit.ted in any'outdoor 'area on 't~e :subject
.prOp<!rty.-'
Kr·I1~BO<JOlrefe~~e<fto.Condition '110.'3~,'r414ting to
Prograil ~~'j.toriJ)9",oftbe ,,,ropo';,,,,'faCility,and
s"qqe~ted.,~A~~befO~loWiri9>1(irdingbf 4n""rH in the
l,AStsente~,:e,"th~program••hall !Jo,mi>difi"d by the
.YIIC\,i"....annh~ppr(,Ve~bY'~he ~ltln'!iri9 pepart""nt."
iPl.nni"qoir~ct9"'1/"",i"k(!i:'ilit4t.e.l,that iit ~s !not t.h(·
(>lannin9o<>partolent'Ii'int,"';!:'to m<ldHi tho'progrllms of
the YMCA.'L!'
,__40~"'~::'c :'j''':~;H
Apr~l 21.1983
of.t Beach
nt···CAU
Mr.de Ilo<>ol referred to Page 4 of the "toff repoH
which addresses inconsistencies with th~approved
conditions of sfproqal in conjunction with the eXisting
developIMnt.lie stated that the masonry ",,,II adjacent
to the I\nniversary L<m"tract was constructe1 in 1%8
and .."s ~rOved by a City ins!*,tor.He stated t1uIt
the outdoor basketball court:.and playground h enc;l."sed
by a 10 foot high fence.rather t1uIn a S foot high
fence.lie statl!dtha".the revolving doonto the pool
and the.weather d"""',:,re stored In the.outdoorstorsge
ar......CltaiJ:llllUl.King stllltl!d.that this area would be
replaced by the proposed expansion.
Mr.de Ilo<>ol stated that the 4 foot h~gh liqht standards
were continually being destroy~d by chUdren on
bicycles.lie stated that over a year a90.two ot the
YMCA volunteers installed the higher li<jht standard.
for safety and security purposes for the ~rs.
Mr.de Ilo<>ol referred to Condition No.29.relating to
the !iqhting syst.....and stated that they will cOfIlply
withll4id C()n.sition..He stated that they are also
willin9 to COfIlplywith·thelandseapin9 conditions which
have .been recOlllllendedin the staff report:.
In rellponse t:o a'lU~"tionposed by Cltainan Kil\9.Ilr.
de.BooI!Istitted that ..the four foot hi<jhHqhl:standar<ls
have~j\UiWl.red and Wouldbe .removedfor the proposedexpaill'i';';.··...•..•...•.•:i •.•..
C~i~~i~nei Balaii.aSlc:edHr.de soom.ui the vb "as
considu.edusill<l satelite facilities within the
c"""""nity•rather than co..oinin9 the proqralll"into one
facUity •.Hi,.d..Iloolll stated that they have conSidered
thl'lsatditec:o""ept.but the costsinvolvinq land,
.addi.t1ol'al.facilities and·staff have not proven
feasible .•
Commissioner Bal.1is stated that
aJ;ound .tlte.lJlISIS facUity or
•~l~ntaiy .si:~""l.site WOUldbei>"oqr....s of the Yl\CA.Mr.dlii
hav"expi9re~the ¢Orona de 1
s.it(!.butthe~e ~sllotappear
.comoiu~i~Y·suPi'<>rt/f1nancially <ir:~~:~~l:nsupper"the operati<incf ilY~.elocation.·......
(COM~April 21,1963
tBeach
MIl~..JllS ..
INDEX
Mr.de Boom stated that the YMCAoffers 'Jfj-ait(,fitness
programs for the eaaployees at the Pord ".rOllut.ronics
complex and swi.Baing instructions ilt apdrt.ment
"""'Plexes vithin the c,,-mily.lIe ..u ted th.t the
Orlln9"Coast.YIlCA IIIeIObers are equa Il y "pH t bet",een
Newport Beach and Costa Mesa.residents,with the
balance of the IOelllberG"'ho are e..ployed In the airport
ar*a and reside in varivus cities.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Balalis,Hr..de Boom stated that:th"facility is
generally utilized by the following 'lroups Of perSons
during a typical day:6:00 a ....to 9:00 ...~.-working
ddults,9:00 a.m.to noon -hOUSCW1Vft~and senior
citizens,noon to 1:30 1'....local buoi"essM'"late
afternoon -children,5:00 to 7 :00 p.m.-working
adults,and,7:00 p.m.lo 10:00 p.m ..-local residents.
In renponse to a question posed by COmMissioner
Balalis,Mr.de 80ce stated that the running track will
be constructed with an artificial surface·over
liqhtveiqhtconcrete,which "ill help.t(>eliminate the
noi....eo-isaionerMeLauqhlin stated that sh"1.
concerned ",ith the ooi ...which will be qeneratedby.the
perllOns utilizing the running track,not necessarily
th"noise of theruMin,:sur.face.
'Cresponseto aquest:i<>~.posed •by •ce...iCsioner
HcL&ugblin,Hr•.deBoom stated that.t~"Corons del ~~r
1l1ementsry Scho<>l .site "'''S considi<red f.or latch key
children,'~but therewa.s not"sufficient interest to
support an after-schoel program at thin location.
eo.usaioner,Goff.stated .that since tile ,running track
·couldl>eutilized.until 9;00p ....durin\!.the s .......r
""'nths ",ithout the benef.1t of glumination,ha allk.,.,if
the ',adj<>ininqresidl!lnta,VQuld find,it acteptable to
iUWIlihat.therunni"9.track un"H 9:(!0 plm;during the
winter ""'nths.'."Ch4i.rtlI&~lI:iJi.qsU'lgest"d'that perhaps',r ..coned ,lightinqOQlild i><!..insta!led ,inth!'parapet
.'",all on,the ,running'track which .....y.not be offensive to
the ,surrounding ,reside~ts.
';:"
Mr.de BOOOIr"ferrecl '..to·,s,,model .of iU",'.'!quested
development which depicted the proroied layput •.
-42-
April 21.1983
Cit of New t Beach
MlNUTlS
INDEX
Commissioner HcLaugh~in asked Mr.de Boom if they had
considered placinq a portion of the facility
undergrour.d or lowering the facil!tv so as not to
exceed the """'illtum allowable height.!'Ir.de Boom
stated that this concept had been discusll<ld.however
the Costs of the project would increase because of theamountofsoilexcavationwhichwouldbenecessary.
Chab.1llllnlCinq stated that beC4\lse the project ,",uld be
developed with donations and matching grant furids.the
applicant is trying to keep the costs at a mini8UB.
Hr.Raleigh Pu ....rd.resident of 2139 Anniv@tsary Lane
and retired i.'irector of the YMCA.appeare4 before the
Commission.ile statad that the YMCA Oll"rates from
progr"'"memberships.COIllIIl"~nityfunds and donations.He
stated that the National YMCA has stringent regulations
for their professionally trained and coll"qe educated
staff melllbers.He stated that illpOrt..llt ,incOllle is
dedved frOll adult physical educati,?n metIib<lrships.He
stated that the proposed developeent is needed in order
to",,?r~adequateIY 'Ilene the meooI>ersof,thec"""'!"nitl'.
He .st~t~that the 'concerns of the surrounding
resfde"tsaM'the 'concerns which have been:expressed.
can 'be 'resolved;,..
C<:>IliIlIl"iliorierWinburnasked Uthe wall..,adjaeebt;to the
Anniver ..ry Lane tract.which!,was :co~structed
,?rigil\dly 1968,was constructed attlJe fminilltuia1'Ieight•
."ra~er"than5 feet ,in heIght becaUlle'of"ai lack of
fWlds.Hr.'Puilardst.ated that furids "e"e'lacking in
1968,bUt thattha residents'Df the are.~Drked with
the'YMCAin resolving the problems ~hlch arose.
,'"'''..\,'
Hr•.JDhn Shear.resident of 2128 lIesa Drive.su9gested
'tha~'the handball oourtbe:constructed under9ro~d.He
stated thet..variance/to ,'exceed:tl,..height ,is not
warran,ied.bec,au ....of the lack.of funds.He Htated that
thepropos~developlnent'can,be cut down in s1z:e and
.till 'acec:iolltodate the needs ofthef ac 11i ty •He Stated
thAttiieblinlcin9I*ing light on the r)lnnin'J;track are
ol:ijectlonableand',that,en·""'Plifled paging syst"'"
sliOUtdnot,be allowed during the:lIV/'nil><Ii!\ours.lie
also 'eXpressed,'h1a''concarn that':the ..prciposed
development may ~arrant the expansioi>:of Ilnl.versity
llrive'in thlPfuture.·,,:''.
-43-
April 21,1983
Chai.rman Kil19 stated that pacing lights which he has
observed at other far:iliticfi are not.flt..Jticeable,lJnt;]
the runner himself approaches the light.
Ms...Karg~et Polson,resident of the Four Fours
CondominiumAssociation.andout-qoinq ~reaident.of the
Association,aweared before the C=hsion.Ms.
Polson ..tatad that the IIll!lIIbGrsof the Aenociation are
not fully aWal'...",f.;th..iOlpacts '.of the proposed
developaent.Sh...expressed their concerns relating to
the proposed l1ghtil19 •.pacing lights.landllcapil19,
nQise,traffic.and the general impacts'upon the
COIIIllWlity.She requested that thit<item be continued
so that the members of the Association can become mo~e
familiar with the proposed development.
Ms.Polson stated that the YMCA delivered a
presentation to the Four Fours Association latt week.
but not all members of the Assoei~tion were in
attendance for the presentation.
Chairman Kinq ..ask....if it wOUldbep<:)ssibl"to locate
tha pacing ..lights.i,!·.thee ,"para~t walls.Planning
Director Hewick..r stated that theanly enclosure of the
parapet walls is in'the c~rners.with anapen railinginbetween...
Hr.Dave Lorenzini,~h~_,,_arch~tect for 'the 'project,
stated that the parapet wall "ill be located
approxiJAately ,18 to 2.4 inches ahoye,the surface of the
running track..which -'_.can.,acc-oaimOdar:fZ:the iproposcd
walkway liqhtiIl9.H"stat.ed that the pacing lights
utili~.VI!~.10lf.voltage ..nd beeausp.of th~height of
:thebuildinq •.the "',djacent residents "",uld not be able
to see the lights.
.;';;i
Ch4i"....phri9,;~~t~4p;4tiens~s of ;the paeil\9 lights
lira s1al~lar ...to tratfic.Ughts.whi,eh can not be seen
,'\Inle~~,ap"=BOri,is ,l1~el'ing •tbem ,f~o",!':hMd on
.podtio".<r....tl!er ..than.a,side;an"}".i Hr.'l.orr,nzini
stated that thep4cingl~gb.ts donat ;f1!'sh hnd are not
bright.He stated tnatthe paeinq liqltts ;>re cov<lred
with colored lenses a.descrlbeil 1>y1ch ..ini"n Kj.nq.
;!'.,',':.,..;,.c·;;
"ROll CAll
In response to a question posed by COil:ft!mHon~r Goff,
Mr.Lorenzini further explained the d"4l"rl of the
parapet "'all.Mr.Lorenzini stated that the intent is
to keel'the height of the parapet wall aa Ie"as
possil,Ie.in order to keep the bolk of tll"buildil"l'J as
low,as poss:il:>le.He stated that.the HlJhts will he
located in th~sidew~IIOf the parapet wall.He stated
that only the open raiHng will be .Ilb<w ..,the parapet
wlSll~,!Ie stated.that thalights will he Installed to
only 18inch~~above the runnillg surface.,lie stated
that t:h~"alk"aYUghtl1lwillonly cast a,glow upon the
runnillg 'surfac.and'will not 00 visible frem adjoining
residents.'
H6.Cynthia.BrO\l.Yfl,residfwt of 227~)("~ldon Cir~le,
located directly oohind the YHC'.."pp<>ar",;before the
COOIlItission.Ms.i!rown st.ated that she wu opposed to
Ughting which was requested atth"1919 hearing on
this IIlAtter~However.she stated that U."Hghtinq wa..
installed and it is very objection"!>i,,to her.She
expressed her concerns relating to 1:h"tra.h which is
depo.ited upon her property.the Ioud'p"akeu which are
u,tiUzed and"the,....intenance of th"land"",,!,ing.She
stated'that ,the uss 'of the propo""d i!<welopment is
ob:lilletfonable~that ..he isopposedtQ the height
lilili t being exi:eede4."
In re.pons~,to a question po.e~byC""""bsl.oner Allen,
/1s•.8r~stated that she r"aIi7-""that the Iiqht
source!r""the 'light standardS,can'b.,concealed,
'hO<oiever,Mli.Brown stated that she is oppd""d to the
illUmination which is'generated 'frooi the parking lot
llqhtinlJ·'
April 21,1983
NeWOCy't Beach
ROllCAll
Ms.Martha Ourkee,resident of 20311 Cypres~tH:r~~t and
President of the Ba~k Bay Associati~n~dr~c4tr~before
the Commission,and stated that the ~r:i fir the Back
Bay Assceiation were never infomed ot tt."YMC"
proposal.I<Is.Durkee stated that they ani j II favor of
development of the YMCA.However,she stated that they
are concerned with tha following:the MisG r,leMrat"d
from the"amplified speakers,the maintenance and
landscaping of the area.and the height of the proposed
fa:c~lity.,She atated that the excess height IroUld set
a ,preceden""for the area.She furtMl:',"tated that
they feel as though the proposed runnirtlJ trl1lcl<would
not be necessary.because of tha many running trails in
the Back Bay arell.She suggested that the "i W be
qraded in order to construct the proposed f acili ty
lower on the site.She reqtoested that the i telllS be
contin"ed in order for furthar study by the ."".b"rs of
the Back Bay Association.
Mrs.!loth.....resident of 2~4S1 Upper Bay Drive.
appeared 'before the Commission.Kn.lletha..stated
that she is in favor of the YMCA,h"""ever,she is
cOncerned with'the excessive height of'the proposed
facil1ty.,Shestatedt.hate1ght h"""","on lie....Drive
will bea~erselyaffected by the proPQf«I(\heiqht.She
expressed'her'concern relating to th~illCrease in
tr<af'fic,ol\U~ive~slty Drive,and qUeliltioned how a west
bOund lane C6uldbe added to the int:ermti"n.'
In response to
Plannin9 Director
"'ill be reqUired
CommiSlllion.
a question posed by Mrs.Batham,
"ewicker stated that this upplicRtion
to obtain r ?proval fr..,.,the Coastal
Mr..Ilatham stated that publi c notices of the hearing
should have been ...iled to all of the condominium
residents,rather th".,just the I'resident;of th"
condominium association.She r"que.ted that these
items be continued until'lIuch notIces ere moiled.
cOOIitiissioner AH"nrequested'that'Mrs.,Ilatham su1>roit a
Hst 'ofth,e 'addiesses on !lesa Drive to,the ,Planninq
Dej>artment.,'Shestatedthatthe staff,will also send
public notices to the affected COllllilunitya£sOl:iations.
Planning Director "....ieker notice.
are normally not .ent limite
April 21,1983
t Beach
MlNUl'f.S
INDEX
Mr ~Donald Webb,City Engineer,respo1id,.,.a.to Hr!!:o.
8at!wn's concern relating to the addlHon of ,
westbound right turn lane on tlniversHy Drive.He
stated that the street is of sufficl~nt width to
restripe,which would allow for Ii tMr\!lb.e at this
location.
Planning Director Hawielear stated that public notices
were sent to 1111 ownera of the ~ondomirdu..proj eet
which were within the 300 foot a..it,..hieh is
approximately one-half of the condollinlum owners.
Chairman ....Kill9 auggested that the rCllJliMer of the
condominium owners be notified of th~proposed
development.
Planning Director lIewicker stated that tho eU.,ination
of the proposed running track will not solve the height
problem.He atated that height of the proposed
C]}'lIlIl8siumalone,exceeds the allowable height in the
24/28 Foot Height Limitation District.
Mr.de 800m stated that approximately 3~members of the
Four P'ours CondOlOiniwn/lssociation met at the .YMClIat
7,30"p....on,April.12th,.to discuss.the pr.oposr<!
development.He stated.that the pr:>posed fightinq and
traffic were.a1s~dia"'U....d •...He sUt~.th.lt the YMCA
.hadagreed.t';'Jchain i:hed~i,,"1"ay •aft"r .IO,OOp.m.in
order 'to exclude.",ehi"les.f~"",ent<lrinlJ the parking lot
tifter hOur..He\lIta~th"i:Jthey ,also llgree!!to;place
a stop sign across the exit path and that 'the eXisting
stop sign would be.relocated .to be:more visible.He
statec!that the YMCA.also.had a preliminary meeting
with'the Board ot .Directors of the A05ociation to
discuss the proposed develoPll"rlt.
'COIlIIlhsionerGoff stated.that the chainln<J .of parking
lots has.presented problems ill the .past.Hr.d~Boom
suggest<ldthat ,.a g"te ••could be utilized ''1 501ve the
problem ..'
'Mr'oded!OClOIstat<ldi:hatllll\rtY of the <:orice~nhexpressed
relating to the noi"eq"nerated bY;the!YllClI;~ill be
gr ....tly,reducedwith.tlle proPosedd<iv~loPa>ent because
.astof the activitie"can then be heldiindoor.,rather
.than outside."
',:!"
ROil.CAll
April 21,1963
r4t(....
Ml1:-\JI.S.
Hotion
All Ayes
Conmi!iaioner:Balalia suggested that the a r.r::Iii lfH':t
consider the possibility of h)Wering th(:bui Idinq.HI;'
also suggested that the YMCA notify the l.lM1ediate
residents of the area and float balloons to the
proposed height of the structure.Mr.de Boom
concurred and stated that this can ~.o'acc.-:mtpli$hed en
Saturday,April 30th.He stated that he ",,11
distribute flyers t?~~Anni~~rsary Tract,Meaa Drive
and condominiwa residents.He stated that he will also
take photographs of the balloon dl!1llOlISrration.If"
stated that the YMCA wants to continue to be a good
neighbor.
COJmnlssioner Goff stated that the conditions on the
oClriq1nal use perml t were specific in thdt no outdoor
g~me courts or activities of 4 noisy nature were to be
permitted without first obtaining ..use permit.
However,he statod that the testimony has revealed that
noisy outdoor activities do take place.lie stated that
....ny of the noisy outdo<>r activities will be moved
inside the f.acility with approval ot the proposed
developll1ent.He further stated that if the proposed
developoent were to be approved,the YMCAwould be
required to adhere ,to the conditions relating to the
lighting syst .....and landscaping...
Chairman King stated that the staff would not have to
send additional public notices t~th~r~r~o~s'who have
already 'been '1\Otified.oftbepublic heflrlnq,but only
to those p.;rsons .and associationS WhO have been
previously "",ntioned as not having received a public
nottce.
Kotion was
Co..Aisslon
CARRIED.
made to continue these i.tems to the P]anninq
Meeting of May 5,19$3,which MOTION
•••
''''''5,1983
ROIl CAU
~roort Beach
Items 110.
5,.;&7
I*roVED ,/1
COIlOI..,
~y
Traffic Study lConeinued Public Hearin2)
Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjun~tion with
a 45.000 sq.ft.addition to the Y~~facility.
Use Pel'lllit 110.1128 IAloended)ICont1n"'d Public'Rearing)
Request to amend a previOusly approved us~~r.it that
permitted th"e~tablishment of a 'fHCAfacUity in the
R-I District.The proposed e.mendment,is •request to
construct a 45,000 1 sq.ft.addition that includes
youth and fa0ily fitness facilities,a~jmnastics
r:enter,a child care center,offices,4 COIlIDUnity
meeting "enter and an illWllinatod roof top
1ogging/el<ercille area.The proposal also includes a
modification to,the Zoning Code so all to allow a
portion of the proposed building,an enclos,ed trash
area,and a 6 foot wall to encroach into the required
20 foot front yard setback"a portion of,the required
pnkingspacas to be compaCt spaces,,and to aUow e
wall mount"didentification sign in ""ceae of 2 "'l.
ft.,and the acceptance of an environment:41 dOCUll:ent.
,lIND
V"daticeNo.'log8/Continued Public Heai:injll
R"9Uest~o~l~C>W ••'~porti~n of the pr<>posedaddit1on to
the Orange Coast YMCA to exceed the,maximum allowable
height in the 24(28 Foot Height Limitation Dist~ict.
LOCATION,Parcel No.I of Parcel Hap HI'.,3-35
lResubdivision Ho,215116<i,,6Idat 2300
University Drive,on tile northerly side
of University Drive~easterly of Tustin
Avenue ill the West lIay area.
ZONE:R-l
Orange Coast YHCA Newport BeaCh'APPLICAIIT,
OWNER:
May 5,1983
Aqenda Items No.5,6 and "were heard c-ohcurrent.lYI
d'Je to ttl~ir relationship.
The public hearing opened in connection \di th these
items and Mr.James de Boom,Executive ~ircctor for the
Orange Coast YMCA,and resident of tl~rt Bedch,
appeared before the Commi&sion~Mr.dl'i!800m stated
that the YMCA held an open house on April 3D,19B3,to
demonstrate the height of the proposed strueture to all
inter0stedpa.rties..:He stated that one neighbor,one
Planllin'fCOminissioner and sever"l ofth ..YMCAstaff
members attended·thed~nstration.He thensubloitted
to the Planning Commission the invitatioos which were
circulated to the surrounding neighhcrhood and a
sUbsequ'!!nt letter which was circulated wh~ch advised
that the height of the proposed building would be
reduced.He also submitted a petition containing
approxiJnately 93 signatures in support of the YMCA
request and a petition containin9 4 si9n&tur~G opposed
to the YMCl\request •
.Mr.de Boom delivered a sli....presentation which
depicted the existing'facility and demonstrated.w.ith
balloons,the reducedheiqht of the pnY...,.e<l structu ..e
inr81l1tionship to adjacent properties,inc!udinq Ms.
8rown-'s'residence;'the 'Four Fours t:'cndami-nium,'site,.'and
Mesa Dil"e.
Hi.'dellO<llllstated that they are nowpr01Y.>sing'to l""'er
the·r.ei9ht of the :proposedstruetu-"by droppinqthe
structure f'ntcJthe qround by approximately 30 inches
which will oost approximately $20.000.00.lie stated
that in order to lower the structure 49 inches into the
ground,the cost ..ould be approd ...tely SlOo;J.•500.00.
He stated that it would not be feasible to lower the
!3trocture 49 inches'into the CJ'rour.dbecause extent;:ivc
excnvation and ha'lling of earth W<>uldbe :required,it
would be locat~d below the wdter line,_wat;er~proofinq
~'ould~be''n'eeessary,'Additional drainage,catch basin
systems and .additional handieappedr"...,ing Would have
to be installed.
Mi.de DO"",stat:ed that the staff rep<>rt indicates the
revised heights in relationship to the originally
requested heiqhts.He stated tha~the .proposed
gymn~sium parapet has been reduced,to ;ft!ct..::8:ndj t.he
roof 'ha~been redlJicl!d to 28 £(-et In
that the corner extension ~as
34 feet 10 ifilche.
Mli'UTES
M~l'S.19!1)
HI.de Boom stated that the propofwtJ h{!!jqhts are
necessary in order to have a gymnasiWI'Q!~t;!li ty that is
usable t01:basketball ~r.d vclleyball C(~eJt;i(;l\.Ile
stated that the requested qyrnnasiumheiqht er~!$not set
a precedent for Qffice buildings in the ar~a~
In response to a question posed by e.:-issfoner
McLauqhlin.Mr.de !l<>ool stated that the revised roof
heiqht of 28 feet 10 inches.include'"lMtedng the
structure into the groun<1by approxu.ablly )0 inches.
He stated,thet if .the.structure were to·ba lowered IIIOre
than 30 incli......vater-proofinq of the~d"'"flocr
would continuously be a problem.
Commissioner McLauqhlin asked why the c~rner extensions
are essential to the desiqn of the facility.Mr.de
Boom stated that th~corner extensions are necessary in
order to break up the desiqn of the flat roof for the
running track.
Mr.Roy Knutson.resident of 2504 University Drive and
an officer of the Four Fours CondoodniW!lAssociation.
appearedbefore·the CoI:missio.,•.Mr.,Knut"",n expr.......d
his concernvitll the.traffic illIpact.which ,vill b..
qeneratedby .t:I14 propoSQdexpansion.'.HequflsUoned,the
assUll!ptiollll o~the Traffic Study ,in qeneral,:and;those
re.latinq te LIe intersection ..,})f IrVine /lve-,and
Santillqo Dr.'e.!Ie further questioned the ~ight turn
lane solution on,U.uver"ity Drive ai>d,st&ted ~t the
traffic on,University Ddve.·will aaver ...ly ilspact the
sur~~ndinq residential uses.
In response.to a question posed by Mr.Knutson ,M.r.
Donald Webb."Ci ty Enqineer.stated that the adja<:ent
offioe condominium vas included intlle:traffic counts
and the 1C1/"alculations of the Traffic Study.
C.-.1.9si;,ner Go(f"Sl<ed,.Mr.Webb to C08IIl!<tnton the
assUIl!ptions .f:ort/le:illterse.ction of 1ryi ....,Avenue'and
Santi"qo Drive/22nd,~treet.Hr.Webb sUted.that the
assUIl!ptions do constitute a tine iine.but .tlWt'the
analysis was ,performed under the,same irul~s as apply to
otherdeveloplllCnts.,,
."".
llay 5,1983 MNJTES .
Ms.Cynthia Brown,resid<!nt of 2275 Goltl~h Circle.
located directly behind the YJ«::A,appeu"d b"tore the
C""""i$5ion.Ms.Brown stated that ooe atwnd<!ll the
open house and >.hat the YMCAhas resl"'nd<ld to her
concerns.However,she stated that the proposed
expansion will adversely af.feet her resillenee and the
value of her property.She sl:atedthat she has
experienced security prcblCllls with her proporty""d
.tated that she concurs with the proposed .•landscape
plan'for'the back'".11.on .her proporty.She 5U9gested
that·thelandscapfng.be h<!.avyenouqh.to prevent perSons
frOll gaining ace ..".to her property.She urged that
the YJ«::Aparking lot be required to.b<l secured by a
gate during non-business bours.Sh..further expressed
her concern with the height and th~IUS.of the
proposed facility.
In response to a question posed by COmmissioner
Winburn,Ms.Brown stated that her propertl'is
currently,llpars ..ly landscaped on th ..back ...aU.Ms.
Brown atated thet th ..proposed landscaping plan should
""·abl ..to 'giveherprivaey,yet b<l able to filter
light through to her property •
KlI{Kay weist;resident of 2499 Anniversary Lane,
"PPeared before 1:he CoIIIois"ion.and lItatGd .that.theYJ«::A
ptlWid ....·.'a·.iIee<'Iad service for ,the imi;ite.C03lIlwnity.
She',"tatedthet thacurrent YMC1,'facility;needs
."xpalUIion·forl:heir,prcgrllll"...Sheffurther stated ,that
'l:h<i ttaffic'prcbl_have expanded in all areas of the
City,not just in the area of the YMCA.
Planning Director .newicker referred to the Traffic
.study and explai ...ed .'.the se ....itivity of the trip
~""ration and'the ....~lIt of t.raffic to the
intetseetion of Irvine Avenue .and Santiago Drive.He
stated'that therear ..tht:ee separate;tests'which'each
intersection goes through in.a Traffic :Study •He
stated that in this particular Traf He:Study,'it "'as
determined·that i to passed the first test...
Mrs.Bathaa,reeident .of 20451,Upper Bdy'Dbve.
llJ;lpeared'beforetlte C"""'isGion.Mrs,lI..~alO ie'/pre$sed
h(!r'concern with,thelle!.AJht of tile r r-ropo!ied facility
and'the propesedllkylights..She:r"f~rred ,to;the
mitiqationmeasurea;and ~ta~;that "hen:M$clification.
are heill9 consid<!rod for the prop<>....d r\>cility,\t""
:"",!,;::i :j i;
-19~
May 5.1963
public should be notified of .~.She f.rth~r stated
that the State of California requires that any
counseling facility be sound "Uenuated to "lev"l of45dba.
MS.Ada Taylor.resident of 2$14 University Drive,
stated that she is in favor of th..YMCA au an
organtz"tion.However.she .xpres ....d her concern with
the traffic impacts of tho pr~ed exp&nsion"ndthe
a.sthetics of the project.She stated that the
lands"api"'1 of the current.facility .needs (iowro_nt.
SIte ask<!<lhowtll.new conditions of apprQ'lal relati"'1
tc>the .landscaping .plan will be enforced.
In response to a question posed by Ms.Taylor,Planning
Direetor Hewicker discus.ed how landscapi"'1 conditions
of approval are enforc.d by the City.He stated that a
complaint or a violation can ba reported to the City's
Code Enforc .....nt Officer which will follow up on the
COIlIplaint.
lis.Beverly lIullen.resident of 2031 M<laa Drive in
SantaAnaHeight ....tatedthatsheis in.favor of.the
YMCA;however;.she'is oppo ....d.to the pr~r"'l"":lIts.
She stated that the propollal ill situated in !:he unique,
ecologically .senllitive.Upper Bay ar ....;.SIIe ~tllted.that
theproposeci si9lls.-ldbaoffensive(to the~l'Bay
'..envir°ntHnt.Shedurther expresseaher:""ncern ..with
tile "excessbeheight,of·the'propolledl )lU~ldi~9'and
I!Itatedthat:it:>wilLbe ,detr.iJilental to lob!>l'IUrr~J\ding
..·neiqhborhoOd.·She,stll1:edthat 1:he structure'sbould not
be'a11_to exceed the 2B foot heiqht limn.
IIr.DaveLOren:1ni.the architect for ,v,e project,
stated that 97\of th",perimeter of the par.pet (wan
;,i11\:1e established at 29·feet in heiqht'above the
grade.·He'stat:ed.tbat ..the corner '''''tfln~i''''s'and
rallin9s will be approxi ...te1y 1 f"et'above:theparap<>t:.
.-.:.-:':
Tn response toa question posed,by.Co!mn~ssioner
lIa1a115.MG.Kullen st ..ted that she .i..o;ppOsi!d,to the
structure'"exceeding the.28 foot:hd~ht lillli t..She
stated 'thaf:the .comec eJ\tensi"n"anll ~n:railings
willbellltlliheiqht oi3Sf"''',wh~c~tS!oliIject;i"!,,llble
for'1Il,>tesfdenUal ...area.·'Sh,,:atat~'til":t.the ·""'''''I.n9
track shOUld not be located on the P~llpf>sedig~.."as'i""'.
-20--!i
""-1 .~
May S.19,13 MINUTES
,.,....,.
Ms.Martjuezoite Butler,.resident of the Your rour"
Condominium Association,atal.rtd that she is 1n frivol:(.If
the proposed expansion of the yMCA f~cility.She
expressed her concern with the height of the parapet.
however.she state,]that the YMCA has tried to conform
to the concerns ex?ressed by the residents.
Mr.Eli Elman.resident of Dalboa eovlevard and
President of the Y-knots,a YMCA ~rqanizatlon,.ppearcd
before the eoOlllhsion.,Hr.Elman,~tat4d ,that ,the
residents,of ,the,Citr will be utilizing the expanded
YIICA facility.He stated that the a4jacent office
condominium will generate three times the traffic than
that of the YI1Cl\facHi ty.He stated that the YMCA
facility will not generate a large volulIllI of traffic
during the peak.traffic hours.He stat"d that the
proposed expa.nsion will enhance the cODIIm.Znitya.nd not
he detrimental to th"community.
Hr.Michael,Ashe.resident of 106 Via Xanthe and
Chairman of,the Board for the Orange Coast YMCA.
appeared ,before the,~ission.Hr.,Ashe stated that
the Y~~~.WOrl<~,hard to propo....a.viable,project
for the c:ommunity;,lie st"te~that due to,a lack of
fundsin196S.thegymnaaium c,,~ld not be cons~ructed
atth.>ttim"••,H~s~at:"dth"t the'proposedhei<Jhtrecluestisnotun'reason8bi,9:,,','
.Hr.Sam Estons"n,resident ,?f 1770,West B~lb.>a
,',Bou!.e;vard.I'iUted tl1at'the,p~oposed"xpansion"'il1
'aUowhi ..and,hiswifet:o utlli,ze the facility at the
same timedurin<J the evening hours.vhich'will help to
alleviate some'of,,the traffic 1"the ar"".
Mr.Don Glli\llll'"r<lsidentof .13272'WeymOuth Court.
exp~essed •his concern ,witl)the future,expansion of
pniversity D~ive"Mr.Don Webb,city ll:nqJ.n""I.-.:stated
that the ~el19th C)f the right turn lane,w,ill be
approxilloately 100 (eel.in length at ti,e maximum;If"
stated'th"t the eit:'""Loe"l Coastll1 Plan ,does not
prOVide for the extension of UnlverftitY,Drl~ei how~vcr,
the <:;lty's (;ir,<;ullJt1,,"f:l.,.,.,~t ,d""s prMlid"for this.
He stat';dthat,l>e"c";'nots"twhe~.:orif,thls,wlll
happen,lled~'i'lit:a~e<l thath"doe.";",t antiCipate Ow.
",ldenln9,of'University'Orlve on'the ooutherly:side,
•",,-""'",".."..;"'_,"',';"..C-'_..•.,..._,,(..",_"•
-21-
Hay 5,1983
t Beach
Mr.David Tonh.resident of Corona dQl 11",and the
former Chalcnan of the Board for the Orafi9~Coast YMCA,
stated that he supports the proposed eXr,J<6IflfSJ_n1~:for the
YMCAfacility.
Mrs ..B&tham reit:erllted that'she is not oppt')tm-dto the
YMCAitself,but she is opposed to the pr~po'ed heiqht
of the facility.She stated that the ,City has stated
that,it will maintain a low profile on t.he bay and -the
beaches.She ,stated that the proposed liqt;Unq should
b~,Conditioned,at,four feet:so as,not to'adversely
affect.the surrounding area:
Ms.Cynthia Brown ~eitti~~t.ed that she isc~cerned with
the height and the mas.of t.he proposed structure.She
suggested that thl!funds be raised in order to lowQr
the structure further into the ground.
Mr.de aoomstated that,the way in which the gymnasium
has been 4esi~ed.the corner extensions will not make
the entire'structure,appear hiqher than the 28 teet.
lie"r~fer,,"d to th.~'landsca~'plan which also.provides
for tile c;once,,!,s~xpressed byMa.Brown.,l!estated
thai:,1;heyare alto willing to increase,the heiqht of
th~bioc1c ",aU}n the corner to 5 feet.,.Ke stated that
the pr.,pqsed expandon is needed in or.3"r to serve'itsmembers'.''"",,
Mje".~e 8()0l0 stated that they are ~n,concurren<:ewith
ConditionN'o·29,wbich relates to the li9htinq System.
ile stated tl'"t parking l~t lightinq is.necess4l'y in
ordei ,to ensure,the<safety and security of ita ""'!Obera
during t.he evening hours.lie stat ell that the proposed
signs .are only 50 square Ceet in:siz"whicb "i 11 be
recessed·into .the waU and'nat illUOlinated.lie
re~teratedthai:it ,"ouldnat be C~asible to lower the
s!:rUctl1re ..further!nto the.·grourA •because
.watox-prooi'inq .....and.the gymnaeiWlt floor would
.continuously be a problem.
Commt~storier Winburn stated that
afl'(>ppO'aedto the heiqhtor the
'thep~0Posed .qymnasiWltand asked
1s """<lssary;···lis proposilld;
Associate Executive Director of
COMMlSSlONERS MlNUfES .(
Hay 5.1963
,.,,-,
explained that the organizad jogging programs ere
<.feared.towards persons who have tfnderyone cardiac
operations.He explained the importance that such
programs "",st be monitored clo..ely by ._ers of the
staff and held in a controlled envirolllilenl:.Restated
that jogging around the existing dirt track or the
qymnasium floor does not provide for It qusU ty j0'J9ing
program.Mr.de Boomstated that access to I:~running
track will be controlled·by electronic ~curlty cards.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Balalis.Mr.Harding stated that the %lIMing track will
he utilized by cardiac participants as well""other
_rs of the YMCl\interested in joqql.n1 fitness
classes.Mr.Harding stated that the jogging fitness
classes attract many participants,which Is why the
i0'J9ing track is necessary.
Coonissioner BalaUs askeel if it would be feasible to
construct the running track at ground level.Mr.de
Boom stated that locating the run~ing track around the
pool would not be feasible with the amount of children
utilizing tbe pool facilities.
C<lIlIoiss1onerBdalisstated ,.that if a cardi"c .
participantwne to'experience pr()b1~.it,would be
diffii:lll1i to transport thepErSOfl to l:h~iowa>:lev"l of
the faeili ty and to the.hospital.·.Mr.Harding
reiterated 'that •controlled envir0rim<1ntis necessary
in order for the steff to mOnitor the jogging
participants,so that injuries are prevented.
Commissioner Balalis asked why the 7 foot high corner
extensions are necessary,other than for:architectural
purposes.Hr.H/lr4ing stated that the corner
extensions are necessary tu pr~vent:the t'u~ersi fr0t4
feeling as though·tMy will run oHof the rooftop.
Commissioner Salalis asked if a OIlnllllUO\he1qht of 42
Inchu would serve the same put!">,,,,:Mr.IIdrdiflg
stated'that!·this ....y be acceptable,h""'eve',:he litated
that the h"i9hl:Of the stairwell is at the !hei'lht of
the cornet extension;;which tie the liuOdifl9 t"qether.
COIllIIIissloner,Goff··'asked··if 'it would i bi.:f""s~ble to
locate t~rullning track in an are,,'Of the site 'which
15 currently set asid"Cor land.<:apirlg.:ltr.:lIardinq
stated that most of the landscapcd,,,~easwill!i~clude
-23-
,-,
'.'.,1,.-,.
"
parking spaces and Eideva.lk.s.Be stated thllt 1~;catin9
the runnin'l track in th@3e areas would not Pl~Jide for
a controlled atDlosph$re.He stated that th~r"•~00
contiguous,unobstruct.ed arca on thl1;site in 'ilfhlch the
runni09 >:rack could be located.He sta~"d that
restripin'l .the parki09 lot would not he felli/dbl.or
re,."lve the prahl .....
Mr.de Boom stated that in order to mak.the project
more viable,they would be willin'l to 'reduc"the corner
extendonstothe height <lfthe raili09,Ch4i......n :1':109
steted·thatllarbor Vi""Hills overlooks ell"runnin'l
track at The Sporting !lqJse and to his knowledge,there
have been no complaints received'frOlO the adjacent
residential uses re'larding the runninq track.
In response to a question posed by Coromissioner
McI.aughlin,Planni09 Director Hewicker .teted that the
open ra11in9 is ill""trated on the plans as bei09 an
open pipe ra111n9 with horizontal ..embers approximately
one.foot.apBrt.
Planni09 ;Director ollevicker...tated that 0 theheiqhtlii for
the various zone cla$Sifications ere;9enerally
dete%1lliinedbythetypes of.u..,swhie:t wouldno ......lly be
found in.the zOnes'..1I....t"lOed j that iu,,"".sucll liS
cburehes;..'lov"mIIe"tel buiidi09s and inatitutional,uses
are petlllittedin,r""i~ntial zones,;~lIft;to seeilrin'l
a USepel:lllit,lie o"ta~.tl1at there.lirC!no different
requlations for 9reater·hei'lht U...it..'which apply to
Dueh UDes.-Howev..r,be stated th ..t such uses are
generally not desi~ned as that of resid~ntial uses.
Plannin'l Director IIcwicker stated that the proposed 50
"-quare .toot·si'lns.are Ofle-tourth of th"siZe of a sign
which would llutOlMtically b<>permitted in a eC>lllm<!rel.n1
dilltrict..
-24-
May S.1983
LBeach
INDEX.
In response to a question posed by Ca-1Uitmer GMf,
Nr.Webb stated that reduction of the corner
extensions to the height of the raiU"".reduces the
height of the building from 3S teet to 31 teet 6
inches.
In response to a question posed by eommi~sioner
McLaughlin,PlanningDir"ctor He.,icl-et ~-Ut<ldthat the
use.permit,h4s been conditioned so.thet thera .,ill he
no illumination of the proposed slgns;
COllllnissloner Kurlander asked if a S foot high wall
would be required where the 4 foot high .,all currently
exists,Planning Director He.,icker stated thst adding
.One foet to the,existin~.wall could be Ii problem in
matching the brick aJ1d mortar.Heetated that in some
instanc~s.a,wa,ll ,beCQOlesmore unsightly when brick and
mortar are ..dded "f a 14te ..date.
CoImiIissioner ,~rl~er,st~ted that a higMr "alluy be
~cessar:Y .for .s.et:llr1ty •p11tpOses fnrtMsurroundins
resid4nl;ial,uus •.,.Chail:1'l4n King·.stated ,that an
alternativeweultl.b<i .tOinteiu,ify,1::e.dOlnsity 'of the
1..n<lJj0llPip9..t.ti]bParticular ,looation~..
lnresponse t.o a t.luestion posed 1>-1 COllOmissioner
Kurlander.Planning Dire~tor Hewicker stated that time
11mita tions are not··imposed upon Tr aft ic ,Study
approvals.He state·':that the City's 'I'rafficPh4sin9
Ordinance procedures wou,ld ha~e,to be amended in order
to do so.He stated··that:·'uses such as.c;hurches and
institutions relyuponprivlIte donations for .their
c"ns~""oti"n •.,hichl!lartes.it impractical to 'guaranteo
theU"",t>;"""'.in .which the project will be'completed.
kotion
All Aye.
May 5.19l1J
t Beach
x
X X X X •
,I.
TRlU'I'ICSTUDY
Motion vas made for approval of the Traffic Study,
subject W the following findin<Js and condition,which
IlO'rIOI'I CARRIED:
I'INDIIIGS:
1,That a Traffic Study h""been prepared which
"na1yzes the iJopaet.of t.he pl'OpOMdproject on the
cireu1at1Cln,sYstem in accordaAeewi tIl Chapter
15040 of tile ~rtBeach Municipal Code an4 City
1'011cyS-1.
2.That tile Traffic Study ind,cates that tile project-
generuted traffic will be greater than one percent
of tile existin9 traffic duri%the 2.5 hour pealt
peri04 on any 1"9 of the critical lnter~ctions,
and w111 add to an unsatiSfactory level of traffic
""rvice al:critical intersection which will have
an Intersection Capllcity Utilization of greater
than .90,
:)','That the,Traffic:Studi~s sug9.sta circulation
,,81'St.iliprOV'!"'Gntwhich will improve the level of
traffic"J:'ViCe',to an acceptable lweI at a11
,criticalintersect1ons;
,4.'rfut"the ~rcposed project.includill'1 circo.1laticn
systt<ll improv_nt:s will neitller'<:au~"nor lIake
l'One an unsatisfactory level of traHic service
on any •...jor·,·pl'1.iI8ry-modified·or ·pri ....ry·
street.
CONDITIOI'Ii
'l'batprior to tile occupancy,-.f,tile proposedl'ro1o!ct",·the .cir~latio"syscem improv......nt.
desCribed in tile Traffic Study dated April 1983 on
Page 10 prepared by JEF En<Jineering.,Inc.,'sllall
have been accomplished unless subsequent .project
approvals require modifi~ationo;theret:o~.(The
ultimate duign of the inteu~ctidn,shall be
subject to tbe approval of 'tile.City ,TrafficEr,gineeri ...
-26-
MlNUns
Motion
All Ayes x X
x
X X •
May 5,1983
USE PERMIT NO.1128 (AMENDED)
.I
!lotion wan Ill/lde for approval of Use Puttlit No.1128
(Aaendedl ,subject to the followin'1 f1ndil19l/1 and
conditions,with ('.andition No.21 to b&.,..rnl<rd 'to
reflect that the.YMCA wUI intensify the landscaping
adjacent to the Anniversary Lane Tract,end 'inercue
the wall and landscaping at tnenorthwesterly GOmer of
~site wIleuthe 'footl:ratfic is occurrlng.wllich will'
precludepersonatrOll1 ",,,ininqaccess at this hdadon,
CUndltion No.34 be amended to include the;wordinq.
·permanent·amplified paging systeMS,Ccr~ltion No.36
b&amended to reflect that the prnqr""'''$han b&
modified by the YMCA in a ....nner approved by the
Planning Department,and,an ~ition ..l condition which
would refleet that a gate b<!provided across the
driveway to close off the parking lot during the
non-busL'less hours,which IIO'1'IONCARRIEO:
FINDINGS:
l~That an Initial Study andllegative Declaration
have been prepared in ca.pUanee wit.'",'the
california ,,£nvirOfllllentalQuality Act;and that
their "'eontent.s.4ve b&en considilred'in the
declJionson 'thiaproj..,t.
2.That based on the information contained in the
Negative ,Declaration,the project incorporates
sufficient ,mitigation measures to redue ..
potentially siqnificant enviroMental .iffeets,and
that the project will not re.ult insignificant
envirOlUl1ental,.impacts.
3.The project will c"'"PIl'with all N'Pllcable
c and'State Buildin9 :Codes and
for new,buildinqappl1cable to
which,the proposed·project::c.~i,~S:u"L~i~te'$~those it:itmts-:requested'in (
proposed modifications.
4..'That the proposed IUl'Lis co,nsu"o"",
Use )!:le....nt·of the GenerGl Plan,
wi th surroundinq land uses.
Hay 5,1983..
g'!.>o·==~;t,Beach
5.The project lot sbe conform.to tlle Zt>nlnq Cede
areA requirements.
6.The Police Department has indicated that It d~~
not contemplate any problems.
7.~equate off-streetparkingand,related vehicular
circulation are being provided in conjunction with
the propo8ed'developaent.
fl.'nw>proposad nlJlllber of COIIIp4ct car Bpaees
constitutaa'l9 percent of theparkinq r~ir ...nts
whic:ll'Is within Halt..<Jenerally considered
acceptable by the City Traffic Enqineer.
9.The approlral of U8e Permit 110.1128 11lJDtndedlw111
not.under the circumstances of thb case be
d"triDlental to the health,safety,p;lac.,IIOra18.
cOlllfort and 'Ieneral welfare of perllOJlS residifl<]
and workinq il'l'the nei<Jhborhood or be d"tdll8ntal
or injurious to property or illprovements in the
nei9hborhood or the general welfare of the City.
;;,
Thlit<&!velopaentsha11 be in '''ubsWdal
'conforroancewiththe approved plot plan.,fide ..
plan./'rev:l:sed,elev"Uons'and sectj.ona'except ,as
noted below.
2.'l'hilt all 'I!lllchanical,equiPlll8nt and treah areaB
ahall be'Bcreenedfrom University Drive'anJ
adjoining properties.'
J.That all >illprOvementsbe ~(~~'::~~~i~~~:e~;~.it:edbyOrdinanceandthePublicWork"
,''l'het !vehicular'access be ,provi.ded
iltonrdrain',easelBent,acceas road ,located
oortheaaterly ,corner''of the
8atiaf""Uon'of "the Public Works Dl!pa:rt••,,,,t..
s.That the on~site vehicular
circulation syste ...:be!,subject
by ',the,Public Worke',DepartJllent.L:,.
CQMN'lISSlCN.RS MtNUliS .hay 5,1983
6.That the existir.g deteriorated dr1vt ~pron and
gutter on the Unlverdty Drive fr<IIltD<;e be
replaced under aneneruilcrnnent permt.t t nr;u(l'd by
the 1'ublic Works Department.
7.That prior to the issuance of a building permit,
the applicant shall demonstrlitQ to the
satisfaetic.n of the Planning Department .and the
1'ublic Woeks Department,that set/er facilities
"'loll be ,,',allable for the project at the·'time of
occupancy,
8.That arrangements be made with the Public ~lor1cs
Department to quarantee satisfactory COMpletion of
the public improvement••
9.That a master plan of sewer,water ~nd storm drain
facilities be prepared and approved by the Public
Works Department prior to issuance of any buildingperidt:s..
10.De"J;!l<lp1lertt'ofsite shall be subject to a:<.Iradingperldtt:C>be approved by the Building,and ,Planning
Departments.
":i ;.:l !
11.'That'a"qradin<jplani 1f 'required~kh.U :iJ\<;lude,a
c08pletepbn for tempo"..ry and p"rtII4hent ,drainage
'fablliti ...i!,~<>minbiiz"'/6nypoten'tiali i~4ct!sfrOOl
sHt,debris;'in'\!other'water poll,utants.'.,-,.-:,',:";
The qrarlinq permit shall inclUde,if req»ired,"
descrl.Ptlo'n'of ,·haul;rOiites,~"cce3u Pointi::,to;,t~c
aite;waterinqi'and'sweeping pr.n~am desiqned to
".,inimi"e impllct'of'hauI'operations.,'",--'.-'.'-,.
AIl ...rosion,sUtationand dust control 'plan,if
reiJuirild;,shaUbe subtlli1:ted and ,b~sub~e(:tt'!the
apPi-ovd of'tM}BuHdihg Depar~"'nt ,,"6 ilcopy
s!iitl'l"b"f6~ardlOdto',the Ca1itn~IIia 'Regional
,lIat"rQu41HyCont.'ol'a()ard,Sallta '''ria )leg ion;,
<-,,-~:..
TheveJocl'ty 'otconi:~ntrated ;'U~-~fe 'from!the
project<sh"ll'be evaluated and ,!ros1ve v~l.;.etties
,I::<iritrOllildlII5'patt ,of th"projcc~darli<in.j .,,,
-29-
Hay 5,1983 MINUTES .
15.That grading sball be conduc~J in accordance with
plans prepared by a.Civil l:nqir.e..r MId bamed On
reee-en'dations ,of a ."U er>gifleer and an
~ineerinq qoologist aubseque~t to the completion
ofa ~rebensive soil and qeologic investi9"~ion
of tl,e site.Permanent reproducible cop!...of'~
"Approved as ~uilt"gradinq plans on Standard .iie
sheets shall be furnisbed to tke'Buildin"
Deparblent.
16.That erc~lon centrol"'allures shall ,l>$done on any
exposed slopes Withint:hirty days :afterqradinq or
....approved by th ..Gradinq Enqineer ~',
17.A landscape lUId irrigation plan for the project
shall be prepared I>y a licensed landscape
archite¢!;.Thel$ndscape plan shall lntequte and
pba..th-1natallaUors of landlicapinq witb the
proposed conatrucUon.schedul...(Prior to the
occupancy of any atrl>ctu~e,the l1cl",aed land~cape
architect Shull certify to the Planninq;Depar~nt
that the lan4sc..,ing haa beC!l'l inoitallcd in
,acoordance,wi tl1 thepr,ep¥ed plan).
The l;sndscape pian sh~libe SUbject to tile 'rMli.....
of th..Parks,Beacbes and Rccr<iation.Deplirtloe!lt
and app"oyal,:of.t.he.Planninq ,DepartJ,..,nt..:'1
18.
20.
Th.,i~nd~ape 'p1.an'"hal1
1'rog,,'";,hich ~ocitrols ,thepesticidee..,."",'"
Th<l'land.capepl,~Gblill place ~e~vy ~';slGon
the us",o(,lS"ol1qht';'r!'elstant nativ ..veq"'l:l\tiol\I\-"\d
be h:rigat~".'!'itb"system des~ql\e<l to "'voi,S."rface runoff and over .....aterinq.'".
Th<l'la'nd.oaP<'~l~'1.~bali place ~e~vY ~"~4dr 'on
,#re"ret:ardant:,vllqetst:J.on.The:~1.11allalul,cape
PlllnShl:ll~,be lS~siim<Od so as ~o:inter/llifY!the
l$ndSc"piMfo"screAAl-nq pur~s~,\id~a~n~ito
the Anniveraary Lane Tract,and to!iilereas'!the
wall,..nd~ano;l.cap~nqat,tb~','norl:h!-e~t~rly:c~r~fIratl:he,site,whe!"e the',foot t:<affir-b:,*cj1r!"irlq,
S()as to,.pr ..dn~per"onG !rOlll !Ja~n~",!lce...s ',at
thie location.''!:
21.
,,
-30··
Hay 5.1983 MINUTES,
22.Landscapinq shall be re\JUlarly Il!alntat,.,,"free of
weeds and·dabris.All ve<]etatton 'haa be
regularly trimmed and kept In a healthy condition.
23.That MY roof top or other mechanical equil!t!l"nt
shall be sound attenuated in such a ....nner as to
achieve a,lIIllCimWII sound level of 55 'Dba'at the
property line.
24.,That any ...chanical equl_t alId eraerq""cy power
'lenerators shall·be screened Ir"""vlevandnoise
associated with aaid installations ahall be soUnd
attenuated to acceptable levels in rec~ptorar~8s.
The latter ahall be based upon the recomaend&tions
of •<pJa)1 fied acoustical enqineer I and'be
approvelll by the Plannln'l Depar1:Jllent.
25.That all buildin'la 0..the projeetaite ahall be
equipped'with fire suppreasion Gyal:elMapprove4 by
the Fire Depar1:Jllent.
26.'That ·all accesato .tbe buildinqs be.apprOVed by
the ..ire ,Departllent.·
INDEX.'
That··.fL~,vehicle acceas.inclUdlnq
planter islands.shall be appr.>ir""
Oepar1:Jllent.
the propoaed
by!the Fire
,",~;.j )';~
,<:28.,l"i04];·de819n oft:be project sh411 I1rovldei f~r'the
incorporaUonof wat.r~savin'l deVices:for'project
lavatories and other water-ualnq fa~ilities.
29.That the lighting syatem within the ~tructure and
in the off-st.reet parkin'l lot'ahall.be desl<;ned
and maintained In such s manner ~8:t~concealithe
light source and to minilllize 119htspill1l9'"and
91are to th.adjacent reaidential:usea.'The p~an.
ahall be prepared and ai9ned;by;a 'Llcenaed
Electrical En'llneer,with a:le'ter from 'the
)•':IEngineerstatingthat.in biG .opjni~n..this
requir_nt haa b~en ...t.,;,
That to'>e final deaign for tile;p~r~inq i ar~~be
approved by the City Traffic Engineer'.
30.
31.That 4 minimum of 181
on-aite at all ti.-c.
CQMN63i:NR5 May S,1983
32.That a lI&XiIium of 19'i:(3S spaces'of the parkinq
on-site ...y be caopact parkin'l spae ....
33.That no ni'lbttiu 1igbtinq shall be peDlitt:ed on
the runnin'l track/exercise area,except for pacinq
li'lhts on the nmninq track.
34.'l'ttat no pe........nt nplifted Pll'linq oy,,_shall
be peDlitUd in any outdoor area on the SUbject
property.
3S.ThoU the two proposed wall sign"shall not be
illUlllinated.
36.It shall be the responsibility of tha YMCAto
IDOnt tor its procp:_for the propotlfld facility so
as to not exceed the capaci tyof the proposed
parkifl9 lot.If itisdeteDlined by the Planaing
'D4partaenttbat·procp:_exceed,the ,cn-dte
parkinq,spaces,they 8hall be lIlOdifted by the YJCA
in a IIllUIJIerapprovedby the Planntnq DftpaE'ment.
37.
;:'
That a 'late 8ha1l,be required acre ..:t1'"'.k1'teway
to close 'off·the parkinq'lot during •the
non-bustnes8 hour8.
COM~Mll'UTESMay5,1963
~roort Beach
ROU.CAll
VARIAIlCE1lO.109B
K:>tion
All Ayes •Motion vas _de for approval of Variance No~1098,
subject ~~the following findinqs and conditions,with
an additional condition that the height of the parspet
walls be liJllited to that required by ~e which would
be 42 inches,which MOTIONCAIUlIED:
x X X X
FINllIIIGS:
1.That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circ:wutanu ..applyin9 to the l.md,buil,Unq,and
use proposed in thie application,which
circumst8nCes and condition..do not qenerally
apply to land,buildinq,and/or uses in the """'"
district inasmuch as the YMCA'sqyan&sium requires
specific d1aensions and height that do not apply
to adjacent properties in the vicinity.
..,".
2.That the granting of a variance to the heiqht
requirement is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property r1qhts of the
applicant,1nall1'lllch as without the beiqht,the
YMCAcould not offer proqraas ""ce"84r'/to lIUstain
itself and ....rve the c:ooaunity •
3.That the establishment,...intansnce,and operation
of the use,property,and buildinq ,,111 not,under
the circlllll8tances of the perticul,u'case,be
detr1Joental to the health,safety,peace,CClSlfort,
and general welfare of persons residinq or worldnq
in the neighborhood of such proposed use or
detrimental or injurious to property and !aprove-
""'nts in the neighborhood or the qeneral wel fare
of ':he City.
CONllITIOl!S:
1.That dovelopment shall be in substantial
confot'lOoUlcewith the approved plot plan,floor
plans,ruv1sed elevations and sections,excopt 4S
noted below.
2.That all applicable conditions of US"Permit No.
112B (Amended)shall be fulfilled.
3.That tbe heiqht of the parapet walls shall
lait<!<!to that required by Code,which would
42 The P:~:~':~atai ......Us &hall be
C
April 13,1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL---~I++++-t+t-------------_·__._~-
INDEX
Motion
All AyfJS
•
April 20,1 Planning Commission meeting us requested
by the appliesn'and that Item No.8,Gt<I1Aral Plttn
Amendment 89-1{G)Amendment No.676,u1gnrding a
precise alig~~ent of Me Drive to Birch Strkfit In Santa
Ana Heights,be continued t he April 20,1989,Planning
Commission meeting.
Motion wan made and voted on to continu t~m No .
May 4,1989,Planning Commission meeting,to
Items No.6 and No.8 to the April 20,198 ,
Commisaion meeting.MOTIONCARRIED.
A *;l;
Variance NOt 1140 (Am&nded)(Public Hearing)Item No.1._----
R~quest to amend oR previously approved vile j linea which Yl140A
permitted the construction of a proposed expf1U11{on to lln
exis ting Y.M.C.A.fac 11i ty which exceeded the 21,foot bllSic Approved
height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Distri~t.
The proposed amendment involves a l'equcst to approve a
further increase in the height by 4 feet on portions of the
previously approved building.
LOCATION:Parcel No.1 of l'arcel Map 110.3-35
(Resubdivision No.215),l')c ..ted at 2300
University Drive,on the northerly side
of University Drive,eastedy ,·)f Tustin
Avenue in the West Bay Area.
ZONE:R-l
APPLICAIIT:Banzuelo/Rierson/Duff 'ond ",wociates,
Anaheim
OWNER:Newport Costa Hese Y.H.C,A.,Newport
Beach
The public hearing was opened in co,mection with this item,
and Mr.Tony Banzue10,applicant and architect,appesred
before the Planning.Commission.Mr.Bsnzuelo stated that
he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit
-A".
Discussion ensued bet.ween Mr.Banzue10 and Commissioner
Winburn regarding the Y.M.C.A.·s requests to exceed the
basic height limit in 1983 and 1987,
ROLL CALL
~1otior.
All Ayes
April 13,1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INDEX
Mr.Eric Glcss.project manager.e.ppeared h(dl)r~the
Planning Commission tn response to Cormm1stl:lonE:l ;JSfihurn's
lnqui~i~s.Mr.Clegg explained that the purpose to ~~caed
the building's height from 28 feet to 32 feet i.to provide
a parap~t to scre~n mechanical equipmen~.
In response to questions posed by Commis5ioner Pernon,Mr.
Gless and Mr,Banzue10 described the design of the air
conditioning system as it is proposed to be installed on
the roof of the b~ilding.
In response to que:s::ions posed by Commissioner Edwards
regarding the no15(1 that the air conditionIng equipment
will generate,Mr.Banzuelo replied that the only noise
would be emitting from the alr conditioning fans.
There being no others desiring to appear and b£,heard,the
public hearing was closed at this tim.e.
•Motion was made to approve VarIance No.11/.0 (Amended)
subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "AU.
Commissioner Di Sano supported the motion on the basis that
the applicants have complied with the required findings to
approve a Variance,and their response to "~hy will the
proposal not be detrimental tc the neighborhood"as stated
in the staff report.
The foregoing motion was voted on,and MOTIONCARRIED.
Flndlnlls:
1.Th3t there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applying to the land,building,and use
proposed in this application,which circumstances and
conditions do not generally apply to land,building,
and/or uses in the same district inazmuch as the
increased height of the various portions of the
structure will not resuit in any additional loss of
visws than is affected by the existing approved
structure that exceeds.the permitted bUilding height.
2.That the granting of a variance to the height
requirement 18 necessary for the preservatien and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the
applicant,inasmuch as without tho h.ight,the
proposed mechanical equipment on the raof may not be
·3·
•
INDEX
April 13,1989
ROLL CAU-
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
'*'*'*
screened liD required by the approval of U;;;e!Pendt
No.1128 (Arn~nded).
3.That the estA.blishment,maintenance,and o;rsration
of the use,prt>perty,and building w111 ',,;ot,under
the circumstances of the particular CMge,be
detrimental to th~health,saf.ety,peace,comfort.
and general welfare of persons residir~or wo:king
in the neighborhood of such proposed use cr
detrlmentnl Qr l.njurlous to property and improvementfi
tv the nftlghbol'hood or the generr.l welfare of the
City.
Conditions:
1.That df:velopment shall be In s!,;bstanttal eonformance
with the vpproved plot plan,floor plon$.~nd
elevation!•.except as noted below.
2.That all applicahle conditions of U ••PermIt 110.1128
(Amended).hall be fulfilled.
3.That the height of the parapet wall.ohall ba as
required by the Uniform 8uilding Code,but no higher
than 32±feet above existing grade.The proposed
stairwella shall b.no higher than the approved
height ~f the parapet walls.
ieque to amend a previously approved use permit which
permitte e establishment of a reataurent with on-sale
besr and win~property located in the C-N-H District.
The proposed amen nt includes a request to permit an as-
built patio dining a in conjunction with th~existing
reataurant.
LOCATlON:Parcel 3 Parcel Map 49-22
(Resub~ivi.ion No.located at 2531
ra.tbluff Drive,at t l>o-.northwesterly
r~:ner of Eastbluff Drive a Vista del
Sol ~n the Eastbluff 5h~pplng er.
ZONE:C-II-H
·4·