Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1900 W BALBOA BLVD_4 UNITSMISSIONERS March 8, 1990 MINUTES _L CALL IHOEX 4. That based on information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and supportive materials thereto, that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, it will not have a significant adverse impact on the _ environment. 57fe 5. Deleted. MITIGATION MEASURES: 2Gti1P.c� 1. All exterior living areas (e.g. balconies and patios) which #$ lie within the 65 CNEL contour shall be constructed with 6-foot high noise barriers. The noise barrier shall be ?� continuous (no opening or gaps) and have a minimum density of ,3.5 pounds per square foot. The walls may be stud walls with cement plaster exterior, 1.4 inch plate glass, 5.8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or any combination of these materials. Wood and other materials may be used if specifically designed as noise barriers. 2. AIL units exposed -to exterior noise levels higher than 65 CNEL shall be constructed so as to achieve interior noise levels no greater than 45 CNEL. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a qualified licensed engineer practicing in acoustics shall review final architectural plans to determine what building upgrades will be necessary to achieve this standard. The Building Department shall require that such upgrades be incorporated into the plans prior to issuance of the Building permit. Most likely the only building upgrade that will be required is higher rated windows such as 3.16 inch single pane glass for all windows that are exposed to Newport Boulevard. 3. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, a qualified engineer practicing in acoustics shall verify to the Planning Department that the above requirements have been met. 4. Compliance with these mitigation measures shall be verified by the Planning and Building Departments prior " to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. -19- i ISSIONERS MINUTES March 8, 1990 Motion withdrawn Motion Ayes ,Absent INDEX Chairman Pomeroy did not support the motion to continue the items. Commissioner Edwards withdrew the substitute motion. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Schooler reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he agreed to pass Site Plan Review No. 55 and the Tentative Map of Tract No. 14120 to City Council. Mr. Schooler asked if he could include the Encroachment Permit inasmuch as the Site Plan would be considered by the City Council. Chairman Pomeroy affirmatively agreed. Commissioner Persbn explained that the applicant would waive any rights on the Subdivision Map Act as the result of the action by the Planning Commission. Mr. Schooner agreed on the basCohat ssion, the items would have ardless of the action that was taken by the -planning Council at a later date. been further reviewed'by the City Motion was made and voted on to refer Site Plan Review No. 55 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 14120 to the City Council based on the Planning Commission's tied votes to approve and deny said items. The applicant waived his rights under the Subdivision Commission. MOTION esp CAo the action taken by the Planning FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89-2(D) LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 18 AMENDMENT NO. 688 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A Environmental Document: Accept the environmc :tat document, making the following findings and requiring the following mitigation measure: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and • Council Policy K 3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 01 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM May 22, 1992 TO: Genia Garcia FROM: Dick Hoffstadt SUBJECT: Resubdivision No. 939 1900 W. Balboa Boulevard The parcel Map for the subject project recorded on May 20, 1992 in Book 270, Pages 41 & 42. is L. Hoffstadt Subdivision Engineer STD-FORM\MEMO A Conditions of Approval 1900 West Balboa Boulevard Plan Check# 2442-90 Resubdivision# 939 Parcel Map Recordation 2. Improvements 3. Subdivision Agreement 4. Water/Sewer 5. Circulation 6. Sight distance not to exceed Z 7. Sidewalk dedication 8. Curb, gutter, sidewalk improvements 9. Drainage, utility improvements 10. Vehicular access 11. Sanitation Fees DEPARTMENT Public Works Planning Building Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works Traffic Engineer Traffic Planning Public Works Public Works Public Works Traffic Building A;' f , "AC-1 MN Prior to issuance of Building permits or upon agreement Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans • • • . Encroachment permit Plans Approval Plans Approval Conditions of Approval 1900 West Balboa Boulevard Plan Check# 2442-90 Resubdivision# 939 Page 2 4t 12. Public Works fees Public Works Plans Approval 13. Traffic Contol Public Works Prior to issuance of Plan/Parking Plan grading permits 4, Mitigation measures/ Planning Plans Approval Site Plan Review# 55 A15. Park Dedication fees Planning Prior to issuance of IUJ\'V ''� Building permits/ ni�,nPls upon recordation of d' �Jw map i Conditions of Approval 1900 West Balboa Boulevard Site Plan Review# 55 Plan Check# 2442-90 CONDITION Substantial Conformance 2. Parking/access OResubdivision 939 4. ), Mechanical equipment/ trash areas Ss�11 Coastal Commission �d / Northeast property line wall 6' wall along property lines northeast/northwest n, Landscape plan 9. N/A DEPARTMENT "tafMON Planning Plan Approval Traffic Engineer Plan Approval Planning Mitigation Measures (see attached) Building field inspection rj� fl onI rc/ � A Planning Pending Planning Field check \ Building Code Enforcement oAj F/tJAL Planning eparate buildhig. Building permit Un r� o,U F( K2- Planning Plans Approval Public Works f(/pcz> oN FiNA v P,B,R �' -- w i t Mitigation Measures 1900 West Balboa Boulevard Site Plan Review# 55 LCPA# 18 CONDITION 1. Exterior living areas noise barriers Q. J Interior noise levels 13.Y Prior to Certificate of Occupancy 4. Compliance .ACTION Plans Approval Letter from acoustical engineer ,tfp�b tter from acoustic engineer TE�JZ• RESIDENTIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS Plan Check No:.6-2�&iG� e) Date: Districtin4 Map No. By:Christy Teague Assistant Planner Addres Land Use Element Page No. Corrections Required: _ Legal Description: Lot/ Block egl Section Tract .y Verify legal description with Public works Covenant required. Please have owner's signature notarized on the attached document and return to me. Lot Size Zone No. of Units Allowed _ Proposed Buildable Area Maximum Structural Area stairway(s) on one level" Proposed Structural Area: Provide tissue overlav of r Open Space: - va zcu- oe uuacxu-- . --t Note: j ] Left S catcuiaca.ons Requi 26,689 ca.ffL total 13,344 ca.ft. open to sky 6,672 co.ft. at to rear 6,672 calt. at to front, 105�� (Area including exterior walls, rking). 1 7<� x buildable area. s S x buildable area. erifvina nrnnnaorl -' -e footage. 1 "` Proposed uildable width �;33,713± cat. total direction (6,x 29,194t caSL open a end, u yf,`Z,964± eo.ft at rear 11,809t cast. at -- -front r ,w S/A0 s/fo is 3�d G/oa 5 7<-o to / The following may not be permitted to Balconies F Decks Remarks: Windows setback: Height Limitation Measured from natural grade to mid -point of roof. Code allows an additional 510" to the peak of the ridge height. e Allowable mid -point 02? Allowable ridge height 33 Dimension all elevations from natural grade to: y /� mid-point(s) of r,/oof plane(s)ridge(s) of roof plane(s) Eab-ei'i`�ttlxra `4-rade' add" finisl�'�d-grade grit all elevay}oney Q (J V Diatra cps between buildings Maximum Coverage Number of Stories Required Parking: lear inside minimum dimension Q.9'-4" x 19' single space (�j� /8 � n V 14- -6+• x 19' two spaces 8' x 16, third/fourth space(s) dk Label clear inside dimensions o provided parking spaces ?l•uU11i41 et-' Is demolition proposed? " ber of units to be demolished ! ,NN San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee - Park Dedication Fee AY gig OVAL REQUIRED THROUGH_. (r Please indicate any i cretionary approval numbers on the plans and incorporate the attached; Y_A excerpt of minutes and list of findings as,- ,�... conditions into the blueline drawings approval letter into the blueline drawings Modifications committee= Indicate Approval No. on Plans Modification required for Planning Commission/City Use Permit: Council: ° 1 No. Variance: Reeubdlvision/Tract: No. No. !y"�_9©Q Site Plan Reviews No. ��% t- Amendment: No. ' C Other ` l�o'ac ant Yer it =cGI.GG �(J ✓ - Subdiz4is-:on-Eng nee:; V reffic Engine- � r.' LsilScapa n4 Building nt: Grading Enginee `9 Parks Department: Approval of Landscape Plann vl I Coastal Approval Reguired- 777 Exempt, Because Categorical Exclusion No. (C.E.O.) Effective Date (Note: Building permits may be issued 10 days following issu ce of C.E.O.) Approval in Concept (AIC) No. /67 3 (Note: File 3 seta of plans: site, floor, and a evations) Effective Date o C`,�Y�� Waiver K 9c —�Y ��"I rj Coastal Development Permit No. Effective Date Miscellaneous 1. Provide floor plan(s), fully dimensioned, showing all room uses. 2. Provide plot plan, fully dimensioned, showings location of all buildings, and distance to property lines. distance from face of curb to front property line (verify with Public Works) second and third floor footprints (if applicable) all projections (i.e. fireplaces, bay windows), label distance(s) to PL(a) _ 3. Chimney (and chimney caps eta.) height ,ge�e¢_cgil/y`�re C. or manufacturer specifications. <I�s 0�' i/1 4. Pools, $past walls( fences, patio covers and other freestanding structures require separate reviews and permits. S. Association Approval (Advisory). Issuance of a Building Permit by the City does not relieve applicant of legal requirement to observe covenants, condi- tions and restrictions which may be recorded against the property or to obtain community association approval of plans. NOTE: It is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their plane and obtain the ' necessary approvals from the departments checked above. If you have questions regarding y0ty application, please contact As at (714) 644-3200. PORAtS\RBS•ZON.COR t I i •4\``'� '•(• ',' 1. fI J''ir, •.�• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Building Department 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 ,'►h -Phone: (714) 644.3288 Plan Check No: FEE RECEIPT Received From' { - Job Address , ^: ❑ 010-5002 Building Plan Check- i Valuation S 5 ❑ 010-5004 Grading Plan Check-- ' �'•'- Cu.Yds.................................. S IN' 010-5000004 Overtime Plan Check- B G ❑ 010-5008 Special Inspection ....................... -•' ` ' ❑ 08 Reins ection B E H P ........................... �:' '::•: 010-50 P • :•• ❑ .I.....♦...♦. S '' y 010-4612 Temporary Utilitias ...... ♦ .. ♦ .. ♦ .. t•''.t_;;:'' %c ❑ 010-4616 Temporary Gas ........................ .' ♦( ❑ 010-5000 C. ;' Y. ':...": .......... $ 4' lan ingp�//� tmentFees.•.✓� •',t J � cR •� A cc + ❑ " 030-5812. " Sale of Maps & Publications .. t, ` •` $ S TOTAL FEES: , When validated this is a receipt for t1 �rr� unt s fe�,pCl eted as shown in space above. The serial number, s•L, Le o .7 -':: ^.:'`:=!✓< date and amount validated hereon haLKER been validated on your application orother'document and have ,• •. , m which this t may be identified +,;;; ;, ;;'• ✓�: become a part of the records of the CITY aF NEWPOCR�T Bhf`fio If�� , •. 'i i?s; C��'r� NEW? 11 ll�r / alidation ' .,'•" ` s;',} i RECEIVED BY:' %�Lr -il.�✓ Serial No: Date Fee NOTICE: E Plan :Ghee k expires 18 0 days s after aP'P(1 cation. °�•. �'\)' 11_gl DISTRIBUTION: Original - Permittee; Cashier (1); File (1) \ 1 , ' �, it• ` r St�l2- am elop &79 pro .1. To: Public Works Department From: Planning Department Re: Resubdivision No. la-6 No Activity:y In Plan Check: Active Bldg Permit: Bldg Dept Notified: Plan Checker Notified: Planning Iaegi ment Comments PRIOR TO RELEASE_ for recordation: Q Gj'� r/ Park Dedication Fee in the Amount of $� i 'is. DUE. Fairshare Fee in the Amount of $ ou, [ ] S.J.H.T.C. Fee in the Amount of $ -9-� is DUE. Coastal Commission Approval of Resubdivision Must Be -Obtained I ,4Y2.�_�L__�-L_ C�i2__��__ Address l �� L�Gti�J Plan Check No. G/L Units Demolished Units Built Applicable fees collected or paid by the applicant. Park Dedication Fee in the Amount of $ was -collected. Fairshare Fee in the Amount of $as collected. S.J.H.T.C. Fee in the Amount of $was collected. [ ] The map may be released for recordation. Record date: [ ] After recordation of the map a building permit change must be processed with the Building and Planning Departments, PRIOR TO FINAL OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, to change the description of the permit to reflect condominium construction, the fee is nominal and payable at the time of the change. Proof of payment of the above mentioned fees may be required at that time if not collected at issuance of the original building or grading permits. PLAN CHECKER NOTES: AIC Submittal ' P Coastal Com. App. Hold On Final _ „ I Fee Collection By date ' %� Descript. Change Plammng Department Pcl Map Record'n r VM NON VESTING AGREEMENT In consideration of the City of Newport Beach issuing a grading permit at this time and issuance of a building permit for foundations only after approval of Resubdivision No. 939, located at 1900 West Balboa Boulevard, by the City Council on March 23, 1992. The developer, Steve McCluer, gives up his vested interests in the rights under the grading permit and building permit and agrees that said permits may be canceled if the parcel map is not recorded within 60 days. If the parcel map is not recorded within 60 days, the permits shall be canceled and the developer, Mr. McCluer, agrees to remove any and all improvements authorized by the grading and building permits within 30 days written notice by the City. The develper, Mr. McCluer, agrees that no additional building permits shall be issued until the parcel map has been recorded. kl^ March 10, 1992 Steve McCluer COMMISSIONERS •lcA0�tf r� N August 23, 1990 MINUTE; ROLL CALL1 INDEX A Site Plan Review No 55 (Revised)(Public Hearine) Item No.! Request to approve a site plan review so as to permit the SPR No.5� construction of a four unit residential condominium development on property located in the SP-6 MFR (1600) SPR District. The Resub 935 proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to Approved allow the building to encroach 5 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback, and to allow one of the required guest parking spaces to have a depth of 16 feet where the Code requires parking spaces to maintain a depth of 19 feet. AND B. Resubdivision No. 939 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing lots into a single parcel of land for four family residential condominium development on property located in the SP-6 MFR (1600) SPR District. LOCATION: - Lots 1 and 2, Block 219, Section A, Newport = Beach, located at 1900 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. ZONE: SP-6 MFR (1600) SPR APPLICANTS: Todd Schooler and Stephen McClure, Newport Beach OWNER: William Tepper, Newport Beach Commissioner Pers6n indicated that the attached Notice of Determination does not pertain to the subject application and was attached to the staff report in error. Commissioner Glover addressed the required widening of the 19th Street sidewalk, and she inquired if additional streets adjacent to West Balboa Boulevard have had the same condition. Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that the required 1 foot widening of the -9- COMMISSIONERS o� � � tSp`O�. o� c�•P �O W 9,.p�y��.� Off• ,ptP August 23, 199U "l MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX subject sidewalk was in response to a concern that was previously expressed by a City Councilman inasmuch as the subject location has a large number of pedestrians crossing from West Balboa Boulevard to the beach areas on 18th Street and 19th Street. Commissioner Glover suggested that the recommended request to widen the sidewalks should be made a policy so as to inform the developers of the forthcoming condition. Chairman Debay indicated that there are not sufficient facts available to the Planning Commission to make a determination on a single project, and the impact of the project needs to be proven necessary to widen a sidewalk. • Commissioner Pers6n stated that the Planning Commission does not set policy to widen sidewalks. Mr. Webb stated that the City i Council's concern was on arterial streets and not on side streets. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Webb stated that it was the intent of the Public Works Department to that the Planning Commission consider a review of the recommend widening of sidewalks with the review of the modifications to the Zoning Code, and he suggested that projects be reviewed i individually until after said review. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Todd Schooler, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he agreed with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of recommended Condition No. 8, C'r Resubdivision No. 939, regarding the widening of the sidewalk adjacent to 19th Street to 6 feet inasmuch as he could not foresee future widening of the sidewalk by the property owners in the area, and he addressed the requested reconstruction of a twenty foot radius return with a curb access ramp. Mr. Schooler referred to the Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 1990, and the City I' Council's recommendation on April 23, 1990, that the applicants the size of the development to four condominium units, and 13 reduce to reduce the square footage and Floor Area Ratio of the project. _ Mr. Patapoff, 209 - 19th Street, President of the Garden Peninsula I% ' Homeowner's Association, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he addressed the property owners' concerns regarding the property line and the existing wall between the subject property and the property to the north. Commissioner -10- i` i - 4 ---- - August 23, 1990 COMMISSIONERS "�''� , t MINUTES 1� �N GOuO� O�� �O q'n0 �`� N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Person indicated that the foregoing concern needs to be resolved only between the applicants and the property owners. ' Discussion ensued between Mr. Patapoff and the Planning Commission regarding the location of the wall. W. William Ward, Senior Planner, explained that Condition No. 6, Site Plan Review No. 55, requires the removal of the existing wall which is currently located near the northeasterly property line. Mr. Ward indicated that if the action that is taken between the property owners determines that the wall cannot be removed, the applicant will be required to revise the proposed project and bring the application back to the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Ward replied that the wall encroaches 2 feet on the subject property. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, agreed with Commissioner Person that the location of the wall and property line is a civil matter between.the property owners. Commissioner Edwards addressed the proposed easement. Mr. Schooler explained that a Title Company on three separate occasions could not locate a recordation of an easement on the property. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made and voted on to approve Site Pla.. Review No. Motion * * * * * 55 (Revised) and Resubdivision No. 939 subject to the findings and Ayes Absent * * conditions in Exhibit "A", with the exception of a modification to Condition No. 8, Resubdivision No. 939, deleting "and that the sidewalk adjacent to 19th Street frontage shall be widened to 6 feet". MOTION CARRIED. Y� i -11- COMMISSIONERS y August 23, 1990 MINUTE: .d ,e Q. tS 0 • d CITY ®P NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX A. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 551 Findings: 1. That the proposed development significantly c7too established development and density standards for the MFR District on the Balboa Peninsula. 2. That the site does not contain any unique landforms such as coastal bluffs. 3. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. 4. That there are no archeological or historical resources on - site. S. That there are no environmentally sensitive areas on -site. 6. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 7. That the proposed project will meet City noise standards for residential development. 8. The site ph-n and layout of buildings, parking areas and pedestrian a d vehicular access are functional in that there will be a mh,imum of commercial/residential conflicts. 9. The development is consistent with surrounding land uses and with the goals and policies of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. if, • 10. Mechanical equipment and trash enclosures shall be concealed from view. y 11. The approval of the proposed project will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, , li i -12- COMMISSIONERS 4> �+`' �sod• o� y, tin • OP r.!' August 23, 199U MINUTES CITY OF NEWPOR 1 BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and _ further that the proposed modification to allow a portion of the proposed building to encroach 5 'feet into a newly established 10 foot rear yard setback is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. On -site parking and access for pedestrians and vehicles shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That all environmental mitigation measures, and conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 939 shall be fulfilled. 4. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from West Balboa Boulevard and 19th Street and adjoining properties. 5. That a Coastal Development Permit be issued prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. That the existing wall which is currently located near the northeasterly property line as shown on the tentative parcel map shall be removed from the site so as to provide the required parking access as shown on the approved site plan. 7. The applicants shall be required to construct a 6 foot high, { `^ solid wooden fence or a 6 foot high masonry wall along the full length of the northwesterly property line, up -to the required five foot front yard setback adjacent to West Balboa Boulevard and along the full length of the .,, ' northeasterly property line, up to the required five foot front yard setback adjacent to 19th Street. + -13- August 23, 1990 COMMISSIONERS 1> MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 8. That the applicant shall prepare a landscape plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department, Public Works Department and the Parks Beaches and Recreation Department. Said plan shall, as a minimum, show the size, type and location of all plant material located between the building and the public sidewalk. 9. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 K of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Resubdivision No. 939 Findings: 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 3. That the proposed project is consistent with surrounding land uses and with the goals and policies of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. 4. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning i Commission is satisfied with the design of the subdivision. i 5. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 6. That the subject property is physically suitable for the type and density of development. l -14- fi ri `. ' August 23, 1990 COMMISSIONERS ekn ;.pt MINUTES A A Q c� '�'� �O�d • O� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits unless otherwise permitted by the Building Department and the Planning Department. That the parcel map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the tract map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That the intersection of 19th Street and the driveway be 1 designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping and walls within the sight line shall not exceed twenty four inches in height above top of curb elevation. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. Any walls higher than 2 feet be set back from the West Balboa Boulevard right-of-way five (5) feet. 7. That a 15 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard be dedicated to the public and that a 1 foot strip of land along the 19th Street frontage be dedicated to the public for sidewalk purposes so + -15- COMMISSIONERS slv`•! �= August 2.3, 1990 MINUTEd CITY OF Y'dE fib 1� ®Y� 1 BEACH ROLL CALL FF INDEX as to widen the existing sidewalk to 6 feet. The additional 1 foot dedication shall be taken from the required 5 foot front yard setback adjacent to 19th Street. 8. That curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements be constructed along the West Balboa Boulevard and the 19th Street frontages; that catch basins and storm drain lines be constructed if required to provide street drainage; that the curb return at the corner of 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard be reconstructed using a twenty (20) foot radius return with a curb access ramp included in the design of the curb return; and that all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. The City may have preliminary improvement plans that may be used as a basis of design. 10. That all -vehicular access to the property shall be from 19th Street. 11. • That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 12. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 13. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. No construction, storage or delivery of materials shall be permitted within the West Balboa Boulevard right-of-way. A minimum 7 foot wide walkway along West Balboa Boulevard shall be provided at all times. Prior to issuance -16- COMMISSIONERS 0.1--k pf August 23, 1990 MINUTE: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX of any grading permits, a parking plan for workers must be t. submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. That all mitigation measures, and conditions of approval for Site Plan Review No. 55 (Revised) shall be fulfilled. 15. That the park dedication fee for four dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 16. That this subdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Stem No. Re st to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted aP 200921 the es lishment of a commercial bakery which offers take-out food ite and incidental wine on the premises and waived a approves portion of t required offstreet parking spaces. The proposed amendment in ves a request to expand the hours of operation from 'the original ours of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to the revised hours of 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. daily. LOCATION: Lot 4, lock T, Tract No. 323, located at 3444 East Coa Highway, on the northeasterly side of East Co t Highway, between Marigold Avenue and cissus Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: C'est Si Bon Bakery, Corona el Mar OWNER: Sibling Associates - J. Ray, Irvine Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, distributed a ter r to the Planning Commission from Carmelo's Restaurant dated -17- 745 9 •� n ~ RESIDENT I ZONING CORRECTIONS Plan Check Tele ne: Genia Gaxo-i-a-;-- ssistant Planner By:Christy Teague Assistant Planner By:Marc M ers Assistan� /7 By: ' Date: Address:- — -- Distric ing Map No. Land Use Element Page No. Corrections Required: Legal Description: Lot vc-� Section Tract ` 7 Verify legal description with Public Works Covenant required. Please have owner's signature notarized on the attached document and return to me. YA Lot Size Zone No. of Units Allowed Proposed Buildable Area Maximum Structural Area stairway(s) on one level and Proposed Structural Area:.. 1 �..�..t A.-. 4, c.". 2VPrl AV-,f .gal /X 1p5�� . ag exterior x buildable area. x buildable area. pre footage. �R 1 Pronnsed buildable width i el direction (6'x Open Space: 26,688 cu.ft total %t;35,713t cu.ft. total t 13,344 Cu.fL open to sky 29,194m cu.ft open a end, u as,.2g 904± cu.ft at 6,672 cu.fL at to rear ,. " t t cuss at 6,672 cu.ft at to front, , front , :front .'•'411CLL oc�ua�xn , ' a Front �/ r 91 N3 tf o2774wals d Reari bight �s is g 9 6 Left Side J� �• c��� C/O,) $ ' �-o to Note: The following may not be permitted to encroac n o required setback: Balconies Fireplaces Decks B and n.Windows Other Remarks: Height Limitation Measured from natural grade to mid -point of roof. Code allows an additional 510" to the peak of the ridge height. , Allowabl mirl-/ogint �� A owab e rid a height 3� Dimension all l/eellevations from tural gra to`�. mid-point(s) of roof plane(s) ridge(s) of roof plane(s) / Remarks: t• Cslrca-T grade Distance between buildings Maximum Coverage grade on all eleva ions. I - • - Number of Stories � f 'Required Parking: lea: inside minimum dimension 19, single space C P i8 r5 .1_7'--Fra x 19' two spaces L i 81 x 161 third/fourth space(s) A14 V' a Label clear inside dimensions o provided parking spaces (2DOIDe) Is demo molition proposed? llL��v,,``dd,�� 1 4,,-Nber of units to be delished .�,��.s'U v v..,, ..._... T-,—__ San Joaquin 'tii is ransportation Corridor Fee / Park Dedication Fee k�r:@ SP IUA PPROVAL RE UIRED THROUGH: i. a� Please indicate any 55ll��cretionary approval numbers on the plans and incorp0 the attached; 655excerpt of minutes and list of findings ai conditions into the blueline drawings approval letter into the blueline drawings Yj Modifications Committee: Indicate Approval No. on Plans Modification required for r \) A A .. k.,;r� & Plannina Commission/City Council: Use Permit: No. Variance: No.—�• Resubdivision/Tract: NO. site Plan Review: No. Amendment: No. Other sip Wotjt' 8 oachment Permit bdivision Engineer ye,Q affic Engineer Approval of Landscape Plan Building Department: Grading Engineer Parks Department: Approval of Landscape Plans j 11 kQa Coastal Approval Require . 777 Exempt, Because Effective Date_ Categorical Exclusion No. e i.) (Note: Building permits mayy bbe issued 10 days following isau C.E.O.) G• `f T��LFUj'Fj- Approval In Concept (AIC) No. (Note; File 3 gets plans: site, floorfan�d2e&e v ons) Waiver # �_%D "'�G Effective Datecl Coastal Development Permit o: Effective nDat Miscellaneous _ 1. Provide floor plan(s), fully dimensioned, showing all room uses. 2. Provide plot plan, fully dimensioned, showing: location of all buildings, and distance to property lines. distance from face of curb to front property line (verify with Public Works) second and third floor footprints (if applicable) all projections (i.e. fireplaces, bay windows), label distance(s) to PL(s) 1. Chimney (and chimney caps etc.) height age ed 1 4 ire✓7dlb U B C. or manufacturer specifications. d7' ��` 1. Pools, spas, walls, fences, patio covers and other freestanding structures require separate reviews and permits. 5. Association Approval (Advisory). Issuance of a Building Permit by the City does not relieve applicant of legal requirement to observe covenants, condi- tions and restrictions which may be recorded against the property or to obtain community association approval of plans. NOTE: It is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their plans and obtain tha ✓ necessary approvals from the departments checked above. If you have questions regarding yo:••' application, please contact me at (714) 644-3200. FORMS\RES•ZON.COR RESIDENTIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS Plan Check No: TeT1 J By: Me Date: Map No. By:Christy Teague,.Assistant Planner Address: Land Use Element Page Corrections Required: Legal Description: Lot/ Block Section Tract Verify legal description with Public Works Covenant required. Please have owner's signature notarized on the attached document and return to me. 22 Lot Size Zone F=-0CPJ No. of Units Allowed Proposed 60�.✓` X Buildable Area (Area including exterior walls, Maximum Structural Area stairway(s) on one level and r� red parking). _/ 7S' x buildable area. Proposed Structural Area: : S x buildable area. Provide tj.ssue_o-ver3-av�'E.calculations veri£vina_nrsnoaa�pm�^-s footage. Pronoced buildable width open Space: Remiired �,;',3 ,713t cu.ft. total tt direction ( 6' x 26,688 cu.fa total ,, , 5 hie end u n 29,194t CU fL open 13,344 ,672 cu.ft. open a sky ' X•. Ft , I 6,672 cu.ft. at to rear ,i`,� t23,904'-' cu•ft. at rear 6,672 c .ft. at to front, 11,809t cat. at front TT y�I a'�g5 31CULL11CU JC LL tiI: )l'.1 �t Front Rear I 15E a /-� v - d27lfc�j(57" ' �/ eight S 5/OP/ Sf FLo�I S� fo /oZ ght Side i7 v e/ 5-/ 40 9i6 u Left Side s �c� die G/Od `u / -�t /o / Note: The following may not be permitted to encroac in o required setback: Balconies Fireplaces Decks B and n Windows other _ Remarks: Height Limitation Measured from natural grade to mid -point of roof. Code allows an additional 510" to the peak of the ridge height. e Allowable mid -point o2 ? Allowable ridge height 33 Dimension all elevations from natural grade to: mid-point(s) of roof plane(s) ridge(s) of roof plane(s) _ / . - __ _nj ./a9 Label natural grade and finished grade on all elevations. Distance between buildings Maximum Coverage Number of stories Required Parking: lear inside minimum dimension f 9'-4" x 19' single space x 19' two spaces � 8' x 16' third/fourth space(s) Oiv• bL • �G✓ Label clear inside'dimensions o provided parking spaces Is demolition proposed?� Number of units to be demolished 1 _ Fairshare San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor �_ Park Dedication Fee `� " `� 7'I 5`77. 5�8 SPECIAL APPROVAL REOUIRED THROUGH: Please indicate any cretionary approval numbers on the plans and incorporate the attached', excerpt of minutes and list of findings and ��fFF71���si 4� conditions into the blueline drawings approval letter into the blueline drawings Modifications committee: Indicate Approval No. on Plans Modification required for Planning Commission/City Use Permit: No. variance: No. 3 90 /10� (�i1j�(J(JZG4 ?K Resubdivision/Tract: No. �� Site Plan Review: No. / Amendment: No. Other lic Work)Ls�`LdJ rcc{oachment Permit Subdivision Engineer Traffic Engineer Approval of Landscape Plans Building Department: Grading Engineer Parks Department: Approval of Landscape Plans Coastal Approval Required: Exempt, Because Effective Date Categorical Exclusion No. (C.E.O.) (Note: Building permits may be issued 10 days following issuance of -b �yG Approval In Concept Ns.,� 3 % o (Note: File 3 sets offp plans: site, floor, and elevations) Waiver # Effective Date Coastal Development Permit No. Effective Date Miscellaneous 1. Provide floor plan(s), fully dimensioned, showing all room uses. 2. Provide plot plan, fully dimensioned, showing: location of all buildings, and distance to property lines. distance from face of curb to front property line (verify with Public Works) second and third floor footprints (if applicable) all projections (i.e. fireplaces, bay windows), label distance(s) to PL(s) 1 re U•_$,C. _ _ 3. chimney (and chimney caps etc.) height �peXm&, P'911 or manufacturer specifications. v� �/(- 4. Pools, spas, walls, fences, patio covers and other freestanding structures require separate reviews and permits. 5. Association Approval (Advisory). Issuance of a Building Permit by the City does not relieve applicant of legal requirement to observe covenants, condi- tions and restrictions which may be recorded against the property or to obtain community association approval of plans. NOTE: It is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their plans and obtain the necessary approvals from the departments checked above. If you have questions regarding your ' application, please contact me at (714) 644-3200. FORMS\RBS-ZON.COR r SIl TE'OF CAUFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gommor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Page 1 of _1 na SOUTH COAST AREA Date: January 14,1'% 245 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 380 Permit No. 5-90 9903` LONG BEACH, CA 90802 (213) 590.5071 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT On December 14, 1990 , the California Coastal Commission granted to cial conditions, for this permiT suuiecl. 4u 611_ development consisting of: To demolish restaurant and construct 6,535 sq. ft., 27.5 high 4 unit condominium with 1,463 sq. ft. garage with 10 parking spaces. more specifically described in the application file in the Commission offices. The development is within the coastal zone in Orange County at ignn West Balboa, Newport Beach Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director By: A Title: S aff Analyst ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt 'of -this permit and agrees to abide by all terms and conditions thereof. The undersigned permittee acknowledges that Government Code Section 818.4 which "A public entity is not liable for injury caused states in pertinent part, that: t. ." applies to the issuance of this permit. by the issuance. . of any permi IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. 14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 13158(a). Date Signature of Permittee COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Page 2 of 2 Permit No. 5-90-890 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission -voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the' proposal as set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special conditions set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval. 4.' Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the project during its development, subject to 24—hour advance notice. 6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission, an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: NONE Planning Commission Meeting August 23. 1990 Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Site Plan Review No 55 (Revi ed)(Public Hearing) Request to approve A site plan review so as to permit the construction of a four unit residential condominium development on property located in the SP-6 MFR (1600) SPR District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the building to encroach 5 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback, and to allow one of the required guest parking spaces to have a depth of 16 feet where the Code requires parking spaces to maintain a depth of 19 feet. 0 B. Resubdivision No. 939 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing lots into a single parcel of land for four family residential condominium development on property located in the SP-6 MFR (1600) SPR District. LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Block 219, Section A, Newport Beach, located at 1900 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANTS: Todd S.chooler and Steve McCluer, Newport Beach OWNER: William Tepper, Newport Beach ENGINEER.- ..`•• Alpine Consultants, Laguna Hills yam^ TO: Planning Commission - 2. Apolications The applications requested will, if approved, enable the construction of a four unit residential condominium development on the subject property. Included in the proposal is a request to approve a Site Plan Review; a request for a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the proposed building to encroach 5 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback; and a request to subdivide two existing lots into a single parcel for a four unit residential condominium development. Site Plan Review procedures are set forth in Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code; Modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Municipal Code; and Resubdivision procedures are set forth in Section of the Municipal Code. ,Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is comprised of two existing lots which are currently developed with a small restaurant which will be removed from the site so as to allow the construction of the four unit condominium development. To the northeast, is a multi -family residential condominium; to the southeast, across 19th Street, is a duplex; to the southwest, across West Balboa Boulevard, are four duplexes and a single family dwelling, on five individual lots; and to the northwest, is a small commercial center containing a convenience store and a take-out restaurant. Background The Building Department records indicate that the existing restaurant facility was constructed on the site prior to the requirements of securing a use permit or parking spaces for said use. However, at its meeting of Apii123, 1981, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1982 which permitted the service of on -sale alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the existing restaurant. Said approval shall expire with the termination of the existing restaurant use. At its meeting of March 8, 1990, the Planning Commission considered the folic ving applications for a proposed five unit residential condominium development on the subject property: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 89-2(D) Roquest to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to change th9land use designation of 1900 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly Corner of 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan from "Retail and Service Coii`imercial" to "Multi -Family Residential'; and the acceptance of an environmental document. TO: Planning Commission - 3. 2. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 18 Request to amend the Local Coastal program Land Use Plan so as to change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi - Family Residential". 3. ,amendment Na.. 688 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 9 so as to reclassify the property located at 1900 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, from the SP-6 District to the SP-6 (MFR) SPR District and to establish on the Districting Map, 5 foot front yard setbacks on both the 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard frontages. 4. Site Plan Review No. 55 Request to approve a site plan review so as to permit the construction of a five unit residential condominium development on property proposed to be rezoned to the SP-6 (MFR) SPR District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the proposed building to encroach 5 feet into a newly established 10 foot rear yard setback, adjacent to the northwesterly property line. 5. Tentative MaR of Tract No. 14028 Request to subdivide two existing lots into a single lot for a five unit residential condominium development and related garages, located on property to be rezoned to the SP-6 (MFR) SPR District. As indicated in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated March 8, 1990, the Planning Commission voted (5 Ayes, 1 No,1 Absent) to recommend the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 89-2(D), Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment No. 18 and Amendment No. 688 to the City Council. However, the Commission was not able to come to a majority opinion concerning Site Plan Review No. 55 and the Tentative Map of Tract No. 14120 (3 Ayes, 3 Noes, 1 Absent) and therefore voted (6 Ayes, 1 Absent) to refer said applications to the City Council with no recommendation. It was the determination of three of the Commissioners that the size, shape, and limited access to the property made the site unsuitable for as many as five residential condominium units. At its meeting:.of••.Apri1 23, 1990, the -City Council considered the above applications and determined that- it was satisfied with the proposed change in the General Plan land use designation from;`"Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential" and the proposed change in the Zoning District classification from SP-6 to SP-6 MFR SPR. However, the Coltncil was not satisfied with the proposed density of the development which permitted the construction of five units. Therefore, the City Council approved General Plan G TO: Planning Commission - 4. Amendment No. 89-2(D), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 18 and Ordinance No. 90-17 (Amendment No. 688) with the provision that the project be scaled down to four units; that the in -lieu park fees be paid; and that the sidewalk adjacent to the project on 19th Street be widened to 6 feet (existing width is 5 feet). With said approval, the applicants were directed to revise their project and resubmit a revised Site Plan Review application and a new subdivision map. An excerpt of the City Council minutes dated April 23, 1990, is attached for the Planning Commission's information. Environmental Significance The Planning Commission and the City Council have previously approved an environmental document in conjunction with their consideration of the above mentioned project. Inasmuch as all significant environmental concerns have been addressed in the previous certified environmental document and there are no additional reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with the proposed project, no further environmental review is required. Staff has attached a copy of the previous environmental document for the Planning Commission's information. Conformance with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program As mentioned previously, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the subject property for "Multi -Family Residential" use and permits a maximum density of one dwelling unit for each 1,600 square feet of lot area. Said density limit would allow up to four dwelling units on the subject property. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program provisions. Inasmuch as the subject property is in the Coastal Zone and the project involves discretionary application, the applicants will be required to obtain Coastal Commission approval prior to the recordation of the parcel map or the issuance of building permits. Analysis In accordance with the -current zoning of the subject property, the applicants are requesting the approval of a Site Plan Review for a four unit residential condominium development. Each of the units will contain three bedrooms, a den, three bathrooms, a living room, dining room and kitchen The following outline sets forth the major characteristics of the proposed project: yN y TO: Land Area: Buildable Area:' Planning Commission - 5. Permitted Dwelling Units: (As established by General Plan and MFR District) Permitted Gross Structural Area: (1.75 x Buildable Area by MFR District) :'sty 7 6,630± sq.ft. 4,499± sq.ft. 4 units or 1 D.U. for each 1,600 sq.ft. of lot area 7,873± sq.ft. Proposed Gross Structural Area: (excludes all enclosed required parking: 6,535± sq.ft. Proposed Floor Area Ratio: 1.45 x Buildable Area Building Setbacks: Required Proposed Front: (W.Balboa Blvd) 5 ft. Varies between 5 ft. - 3 in. and 12 ft. on ground floor; varies between 5 ft. and 9 ft: 6 in. on 2nd floor; varies between 5 ft. and 10 ft. on 3rd floor (19th Street) 5 ft. 5 ft. Rear: (Northwesterly property line) 10 ft. Varies between 5 ft. and 8 ft. Rear: (Northeasterly property line) 10 ft. Varies between 23 ft. and 24 ft. on ground floor; varies between 13 ft: 6 in. to 24 ft, 6 in. on the 2nd floor; and varies between 22 ft: 6 in. to 35 ft. on the 3rd floor Off -Street Parlarg: 2.5 parking spaces per 10 spaces including 2 dwelling or 10 spaces in- guest parking spaces cluding 0.5 space per dwelling for guest parking �Rr 'The buildable area is based upon 5 foot front yard setbacks along West Balboa Boulevard and 19th Street and 10 feet rear yard setbacks along the interior property lines. tj TO: Planning Commission - 6. Open Space: Required 26,688 cu.ft. total 13,344 cu.ft. open to sky 6,672 cu.ft. at to rear 6,672 cu.ft. at to front Permitted Building Height for MFR District: Proposed 35,713± cu.ft. total 29,194± cu.ft. open 23,904± tuft at rear 11,809± cu.ft. at front 28 ft. average roof height and 33 ft. maximum ridge height Proposed Building Height: 27.9 ft.± to top of flat roof Reouired Standards for Site Plan Review The review of site plans have specific standards of review as established in Section 20.01.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Each standard is listed below, with a brief discussion of the project as it relates to each. 1. Sites subject to Site Plan Review under the provisions of Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal .Code shall be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor,_ and landscape, giving special consideration to waterfront resources and unique landforms such as coastal bluffs or other sloped areas; trees and shrubs shall not be indiscriminately destroyed: The proposed site is a non -waterfront parcel with no unusual natural terrain features or landscaping. The project as proposed significantly conforms to the established development and density standards applicable to the subject property. 2. Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood -and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City. The McFaddei Square area which is in the vicinity of the project site is intensively developed with mixture of marine and visitor serving retail, restaurants, office uses and multi -family and two-family residential uses. This project represents an extension of the existing multiple -family residential development located northeasterly of the site within established residential densities permitted on the Balboa Peninsula. 3. Developent shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of public views; with specigl.eonsideration given to views from public parks and from roadways designated as Scenic Highways and Scenic Drives in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Flan: There are no view parks or roadways d sgnateas a Scenic Highway or Drive in the vicinity of the project. TO: Planning Commission - 7. 4. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. No structures or landfonn alteration shall be permitted in environmentally sensitive areas unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission or City Counci4 on review or appeal, finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. The site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. 5. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission or City Council, on review or appea4 finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts: The site is not located in an area of particular geologic hazard, other than the seismic hazards common to the Southern California area. 6. Residential development shall be permitted in areas subject to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL only where specific mitigation measures will reduce noise levels in exterior areas to less than 65 CNEL and reduce noise levels in the interior of residences to 45 CNEL or less. Specific mitigation measures will be made conditions of approval to assure that these noise standards are met. 7. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development: The site plangives maximum consideration to pedestrian access to the site with a minimum of pedestrian/automobile conflict. The placement and design of the proposed parking provides direct access between the garages and dwelling units for all of the proposed dwellings. Parking is provided at a ratio of 2.5 spaces for each dwelling unit, which provides two guest parking spaces within the project. 8. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable Specific Area Plan policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those policies and objectives: As discussed in the General Plan Compliance section, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. 9. Development shall be physically compatible with the development site, taking into consideration site characteristics including: but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources. The proposed project is located on a corner site which contains-6;630± square feet and which is uniquely large for the McFadden Square area. However, because of its frontage on a major highway, consideration for traffic circulation, demands that vehicular access to the site be restricted to 19th Street only. In response to this concern, the applicants have designed the project so as to maintain;:Wl vehicular access from an interior private drive which is accessed from 19th Street. TO: Planning Commission - 8. 10. When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas shall be concealed: Conditions of approval have been imposed on the project which will mandate the screening of electrical and mechanical equipment, and conceal trash enclosures. 11. Archaeological and historical resources shall be protected to the extent feasible: There are no archeological or historical resources on -site. 12. Commercial development shall not have signilcant adverse effects on residences in an abutting residential district: The proposed project does not include any commercial development. Proposed Resubdivision for Condominium Purposes Inasmuch as the applicants are proposing to offer the proposed residential development as owner occupied units, they are requesting the approval of a Parcel Map for residential condominium purposes. As indicated previously, the site is currently comprised of two existing lots which the applicants are proposing to join as a single parcel. The new parcel will contain approximately 6,630± square feet and will maintain 80 feet of frontage on 19th Street and 112.35 feet of frontage on West Balboa Boulevard. The average lot width will be 62.5 feet and the average lot depth will be 104± feet. Vehicular Access and Circulation " At present, the subject property maintains a two way access drive on West Balboa Boulevard and a one-way driveway for egress on to 19th Street. Inasmuch as West Balboa Boulevard is a major highway and the subject property is located on the inside curve of a heavily traveled street, the City Traffic Engineer is recommending that all vehicular access to the site be limited to the 19th Street frontage only. Such a restriction imposes an unusual design constraint on the site which has resulted in the applicants designing a private access drive along the northeasterly property line so as to provide required access ) all of the on - off -street parking. It should be noted that the previous project include< three parking spaces which maintained direct access from 19th Street. As indicated on the attached site plan, these parking spaces have been deleted from the project. In accordance with the approved parking design standards for residential parking, the desired back-up,aa for 90 degree parking is 24 feet. As shown on the attached site plan, the proposed project includes back-up areas for two garages and one guest parking space which are only.23-feet. In order to compensate for the reduced back-up area, the applicants have increased the width of the garages by 11 inches. The proposed widths of the garages (18 ft.- 5 in.) arewithin acceptable limits established by the City Traffic Engineer so as to insure that adequate turning radiuses are maintained for each garage. CT. TO: Planning Commission - 9. The applicants are also requesting to allow one of the guest parking spaces (located between Garage No. 3 and Garage No. 4) to maintain an interior clear width of 9 feet 4 inches and a clear depth of 16 feet, with a 23 foot back-up area. The standard dimensions for a single residential parking space is 9 feet 4 inches wide and 19 feet deep, with a minimum of 24 foot back-up area. The applicants are requesting the substandard dimensions on the basis' that the Zoning Code allows one of the three required parking spaces for two unit development in the R-2 District to be only 8 feet wide and 16 feet in depth. It is the applicants' opinion that if one such parking space is acceptable in the R-2 District, perhaps it would be acceptable to have such a parking space in their proposed four unit project. The City Traffic Engineer has not indicated any objections to the proposed dimensions of the second guest parking space. It should also be noted that 19th Street is one-way in a southwesterly direction; therefore, in order to access the project from eastbound Balboa Boulevard, it will be necessary to pass 19th Street, turn left on 18th Street, and return to 19th Street via West Bay Avenue. Although such access may appear to be awkward, it is the established pattern of circulation for all of the existing development fronting on 19th Street, between West Balboa Boulevard and Newport Bay. Required Widening of 19th Street Sidewalk As discussed in the background section, and as indicated on Page 135 and Page 137 of the attached excerpt of the City Council minutes dated April 23, 1990, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 89-2(D), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 18 and Ordinance No. 90-17 (Amendment No. 688) with the understanding that the applicants would be revising their applications so as to reduce the project to four units and that the existing 5 foot wide sidewalk on the 19th Street frontage of the property be widened to 6 feet. Therefore, should the Planning Commission wish to approve this project, said action should include a provision for the widening of the sidewalk on the 19th Street frontage. It should be noted that the Public Works Department has suggested that the required widening could be accomplishes by means of the applicants granting an easement to the City for sidewalk purposes after t -- issuance of building permits. By doing so, the sidewalk widening is taken out of the 5 foot front yard setback rather than requiring the building to moved back an additional 1 foot. The other option available to the Commission would be to require the additional widening of the sidewalk in addition to the required 5 foot front yard setback which would require the applicants to move the building back 1 foot. The attached Exhibit "A" includes provisions so as to widen the sidewalk without changing the location of.' ..building. yr TO: Planning Commission - 10. Conclusions and Specific Findings Section 20.01.070(F) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code sets forth the standards by which the Commission is to evaluate Site Plan Reviews. Section 19.12.020(D) provides that the Commission shall make specific findings in order to approve a resubdivision. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the subject project, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Inasmuch as the applicants have reduced the project to four units and it is in full conformance with the provisions of General Plan, Local Coastal Program and the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan, staff has not included an exhibit for denial. However, the possibility remains that information may be provided at the public hearing which may provide adequate basis for denial of the project should the Planning Commission wish to take such an action. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By • / . F W' iam Ward Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit 'W' Excerpt of the -Planning Commission minutes dated March 8, 1990 Excerpt of the City Council minutes dated April 23, 1990 Previously certified Environmental Document Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations Tentative Parcel Map F.\WP51\PLANNING\BILL W\UP\SPR55R ; "V 0 TO: Planning Commission - 11. EXHIBIT "A" FINDING AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 55 (REVISED) AND RESUBDIVISION NO. 939 A. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 55: Findings: 1. That the proposed development significantly conforms to the established development and density standards for the MFR District on the Balboa Peninsula. 2. That the site does not contain any unique landforms such as coastal bluffs. 3. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. 4. That there are no archeological or historical resources on -site. 5. That there are no environmentally sensitive areas on -site. 6. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 7. That the proposed project will meet City noise standards for residential development. 8. The site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas and pedestrian and vehicular access are functional in that there will be a minimum of commercial/residential conflicts. 9. The development is consistent with surrounding land uses and with the goals and policies of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. 10. Mechanical equipment and trash enclosures shall be concealed y~^ from view. C} TO: Planning Commission - 12. 11. The approval of the proposed project will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification to allow a portion of the proposed building to encroach 5 feet into a newly established 10 foot rear yard setback is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. On -site parking and access for pedestrians and vehicles shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That all environmental mitigation measures, and conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 939 shall be fulfilled. 4. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from West Balboa Boulevard and 19th Street and adjoining properties. 5. That a CoAstal Development Permit be issued prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. That the existing wall which is currently located near the northeasterly property line as shown on the tentative parcel map shall be removed from the site so as to provide the required parking access as shown on the approved site plan. 7. The applicants shall be required to construct a 6 foot high, solid ' wooden fence or a 6 foot high masonry wall along the full length of the northwester) roe line, u to the required five � :��•:; g YP property � P q foot front yard setback adjacent to West Balboa Boulevard and w along the full length of the northeasterly property line, up to the required five foot front yard setback adjacent to 19th Street. C TO: r`�` Planning Commission - 13. 8. That the applicant shall prepare a landscape plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department, Public Works Department and the Parks Beaches and Recreation Department. Said plan shall, as a minimum, show the size, type and location of all plant material located between the building and the public sidewalk. 9. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 K of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Resubdivision No. 939 Findings: 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section-19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 3. That the proposed project is consistent with surrounding land uses and with the goals and policies of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. 4. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the design of the subdivision. 5. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 6. That the subject property is physically suitable for the type and density of development. TO: Planning Commission - 14. Conditions- 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits unless otherwise permitted by the Building Department and the Planning Department. That the parcel map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the tract map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That the intersection of 19th Street and the driveway be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping.and tivalls within the sight line shall not exceed twenty four inches in height above top of curb elevation. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. Any walls higher than 2 feet be set back from the West Balboa Boulevard right-of-way five (5) feet. 7. That a 15 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of 19th Street `..:" and West Balboa Boulevard be dedicated to the public and that a 1 foot strip of land along the 19th Street frontage be r ^ dedicated to the public for sidewalk purposes so as to widen the existing sidewalk to 6 feet. The additional 1 foot dedication TO: Planning Commission - 15. shall be taken from the required 5 foot front yard setback adjacent to 19th Street. 8. That curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements be constructed along the West Balboa Boulevard and the 19th Street frontages and that the sidewalk adjacent to 19th Street frontage shall be widened to 6 feet; that catch basins and storm drain lines be constructed if required to provide street drainage; that the curb return at the corner of 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard be reconstructed using a twenty (20) foot radius return with a curb access ramp included in the design of the curb return; and that all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. The City may have preliminary improvement plans that may be used as a basis of design. 10. That all vehicular access to the property shall be from 19th Street. 11. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 12. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 13. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traf c control and transportation of equipment and materials shall 1 conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. No construction, storage or delivery of materials shall be permitted within the West Balboa :.. Boulevard right-of-way. A minimum 7 foot wide walkway along West Balboa Boulevard shall be provided at all times. Prior to r ; ' issuance of any grading permits, a parking plan for workers must be submitted and approved by the Public Works y"' Department. TO: Planning Commission - 16. 14. That all mitigation measures, and conditions of approval for Site Plan Review No. 55 (Revised) shall be fulfilled. 15. That the park dedication fee for four dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 16. That this subdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. V V IGI N 17'r \\\ P-c �\ b \ r W fw. SY i ya "y� J •�� _ Yu 'n��'4aG i�°rwr 'a. R.z Si.+.it, - rc-�_ M ^`awrw.r u•e u. wt 1 It.M]LSR.SER I. M.R.R { IOT li b LOTS b e3•M N•ssi1 lArl.t.r.t.t KOCt ilt TV" n. rYM• tC. N LOC.TI. MA. V I.Y.\A. (I.•N]) 4,Q s R•t (A•11/ ftl rpR Lt6LLQ •tLti r NI K.1.)uin at,�t,•I ..+yin +N•n If11Y1 JMi TC (L/< N%R(ILOOj SIR. A4 I111 [cm[E mclrle r[Grtllilu m MF[ ttF.tD >�8l : A9'EST L '+_—R'2 R-! o �V R•3 R-2 R•2 DISTRICTING NPORT BEACH — ( AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL R N ANGLE FAMILY RESIOENM C� WPLES RESIDENTIAL C—] h lie .WAA </Oo I R-/ R.Z •rD- � •s. y �- R-3 R ?4 �u«AQo •s• R`2 R-3 lr s. R-9 9 B E '4 C H MAP ALIFORNIA MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UONT C MCAGIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL — OF FEU e•.+�•t� _ N;R WlTP1E RtWLY-RESIOEMIAL N-1 W UFAGTURINO e. tao eoo D N COMBINING DISTRIGTS RESTS WLRPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FT. Yard O.pth In FRGY Shown Tlos:-I - , p r : w'rCOMMISSIONERS v- r • CITY .OF: NEWPOR•T: BEACH MINUTES March 8, 1990 ROLL ^CALL INDEX ', resubdivision shallexpireif themap has n ffbeen ,;r•;,. rded..within' 3 years: of the date of appro .. extension • : is' granted : by the PI g Commission. ! • . li H a in e P rmi N Am n Item No.4 Request to amend a •previously, approve use permit that conjunction with an UP3009A permitted the service of beer and vine located n the C-O-Z District. Removed - existing restaurant on property The proposed amendment involves request to expand and from Calendar enclose an existing outdoor dining a of the restaurant. LOCATION: Parcel No. of Parcel Map 6939-90, 91 (itesubdi ' on No: 179) located at 2931 East ot;H' ,on the southwesterly side of _Co East ast Highway between Iris Avenue and Hell ope Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: -0-Z APPLICANT: Ardeshir Bahar, Architect, Laguna Hills OWNER: J. Ray Property Management, Irvine James wicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has d that the subject item be removed from calendar until reque the azking issue can be remedied or the project can be of the subject re esigned to accommodate the expansion staurant. s s s A. General Plan Amendment No,.892"(Continued Public Item No Hearin GPA 89-21 Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to change the land use designation of the subject property ' from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential"; and the acceptance of an environmental document. lN>TIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach -9- 1� a COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 8, 1990 CITY OF .NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Y • AND B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No 18 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend the Local Coastal program Land Use Plan so as to change the land use designation of the subject property from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential". INn- ATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND C. Amendment No 688 (Continued Public.Hearing) Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 9 so as to reclassify the subject property .from the SP-6 District to the SP- 6 (MFR) SPR District and to establish on the Districting Map, 5 foot front yard setbacks on both the 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard frontages of the subject property. AND D. Site Plan Review No 55 (Public Hearinel Request to approve a site plan review so as to permit the construction of a five unit residential condominium development on property proposed to be rezoned to the SP-6 (MFR) SPR District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a portion of the proposed building to encroach 5 feet into a newly es',tblished 10 foot rear yard setback, adjacent to the northweste ty property line. AND E. Tentative Map of Tract No 14120 (Continued Public Hearine) LCP #18 A688 APPROVED SPR No.55 TTM 14120 Referred to CC for Action 4 G I / Request to subdivide two existing lots into a single lot for a five unit residential condominium development and related garages, located on property to be rezoned to the SP=6 (MFR) SPR District. -10- COMMISSIONERS �`Y�* MINUTES GQ`O A A 0'� �� OVA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 8, 1990 ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Block 219, Section A, Newport Beach, located at 1900 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, in - the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANTS: Todd Schooler and Steve McCluer, Newport Beach OWNER: William Tepper, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Alpine Consultants, Laguna Hills James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the addendum to the staff report addresses the City's in -lieu park dedication fee requirement, and he requested that Condition No. 17 be added to the Tentative Map of Tract No. 14120 requesting that an in - lieu park dedication fee for five (5) dwelling units be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding an encroachment permit for the driveways on 19th Street that must be approved by the City Council, Mr. Hewicker explained that if the City Council did not approve said permit, the applicant,would be required to redesign the project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the foregoing request to add Condition 17 clarifies the City's park dedication requirement. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Todd Schooler, 500 North Newport Boulevard, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Schooler recognized the condition requiring the park dedication fee. Mr. Schooler addressed Tentative Map of Tract No. 14120, Condition No. 6 in Exhibit "A", regarding sight distance requirements wherein he suggested that the condition be amended to require walls no higher than 2 feet. Mr. Webb _11- �,U COMMISSIONERS Im 0z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March '8, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX explained that staff was concerned with the visibility at the reversing curve of the intersection of 19th Street and the driveway, and he indicated that the condition prohibits a future owner from constructing an addition to the wall. Mr. property Webb agreed to amend the condition stating that the walls and landscaping within the sight line would not exceed 2 feet in height. In response to a question posed by Mr. Schooler regarding Condition No. 9 of the Tentative Tract Map in Exhibit "A", Mr. Webb replied that architects are not allowed to prepare improvement and grading plans for streets, drainage, and utilities.. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Schooler concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of the foregoing conditions. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Schooler and Mr. Webb discussed Condition No. 6 of the Tentative Tract Map, wherein Mr. Webb agreed to amend Condition No. 6: ".....Landscaping and walls within the sight line shall not exceed twenty four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer." Mr. Schooler addressed concerns that were previously expressed by the adjacent neighbors. He stated that the proposed project would upgrade the neighborhood considering the existing restaurant that is located on the subject property. Mr. Schooler indicated that the subject property would comply with the MFR development standards, and the project should be based only on the proposed 1.71 FAR. He commented that the proposed project is approximately two feet lower than the adjacent building; that based on the proposed open space the development does not appear bulky; that a ten foot setback is proposed; that the third floor is proportionately small to the adjacent structure; and that based on 1,200 square feet of lot area per unit, the lot area would allow 5-1/2 units. Mr. Paul Driscoll, 207 - 19th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission as a resident of the Garden Peninsula f Homeowner's Association. Mr. Driscoll addressed his concerns regarding the proposed five units on the subject lot; the exact location of the common property line between the subject and the property to the north; the person responsible if property the existing trees between the property to the north and the -12- "COMMISSIONERS A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 8, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX proposed project are destroyed; that according to his calculations, the proposed project is approximately nine inches higher than. his . building; and the view from his deck and kitchen areas be protected. Mr. Driscoll commented that the project would enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the City does not protect private views from private property. In response to a question posed by Mr. Driscoll, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the building height allowed at the existing site under the current commercial zoning standards would be 26 feet high for a flat roof and 31 feet to the top of a pitched roof. Mr. Hewicker commented that the MFR District allows a 28 foot height limit for a flat roof and 32 feet to the top of a pitched roof. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Driscoll explained that his primary concern is that the condominiums would become rental units and not occupied by permanent residents. He further replied that he does not object to the existing restaurant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hewicker explained that the power pole and sidewalk on 19th Street is Shown on the parcel map as the common property line between the subject property and the property to the north. Mr. Webb stated that the location of said property line will be determined when an engineer surveys the area at the time the parcel map is prepared. Commissioner Pers6n and Chairman Pomeroy addressed the issue of the trees being too close to the wall or structure, or being damaged during construction, and Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney explained that the issue needs to be resolved between the property owners. Carol Martin, 1824 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Martin addressed the difficulties that have disturbed the residents regarding the subject site and the existing restaurant wherein she discussed the approved liquor = ?m license, customers' behavior, noise, the restaurant management ' not cooperating with the residents' requests, trash, odors emitting :: • from the restaurants' drainage, and outdoor patio speakers. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mrs. Martin explained that she has not reviewed the subject project. -13- a y COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 8, 1990 l� P i t t i F Ir P� CITY 0F NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioner Pers6n addressed the City's noise abatement- policy that is governed by the Police Department. Mr. Simon Falvey, property owner on West Balboa Boulevard Mr. Falvey concurred appeared before the Planning Commission. with the foregoing statements regarding the existing restaurant located at the subject site. He stated that any residential project would be an improvement over the restaurant. Mr. Jack Hardy, 1828 West Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hardy addressed the downzoning of his property from the R-3 District to the R-2 District, the density of the subject project, and the parking deficiency on 19th Street. Mr. Hewicker explained that the proposed density meets the MFR zoning requirements, and provides 2-1/2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Mr. Tom Hyams, 217 - 19th Street, property owner of a duplex, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hyams concurred with the neighbors' foregoing statements. He addressed the MFR District that was recently adopted in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area, the project's height and density, and the existing lots that were downzoned from R-2 to R-i. Mr. Hyams supported the request to rezone the subject site from commercial to residential. Mr. Hewicker described the differences of the height limit, parking, and open space requirements in the R-3 and the MFR Districts. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Pers6n and Mr. Lenard regarding the MFR designation that was recently adopted within the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Mr. Lenard stated that if the subject property had been previously designated residential, it would ave been considered "multi- family residential" based on the p_ aperty's lot size and location. Mr. Schooley reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he addressed the foregoing concerns. He said that the trees are on Mr. Driscoll's property, the height of the proposed project will be less than allowed by the MFR District, and the • size of the units will vary from 1,250 square feet to 1,800 square feet. He stated that inasmuch as the project's design addresses the size and floor area ratio of the building and the open space ..� that it does not appear to have a 'boxy' appearance. , -14- j COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o f O r F March 8, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioner Pers6n, Commissioner Merrill, and Mr. Schooler discussed the feasibility of an added condition that would require the applicant to replace the trees in the event they would be damaged or destroyed during construction, and the difference in height of the proposed development with the adjacent structure. Mr. Hewicker addressed the MFR District and the number of he stated that the subject units allowed on the property wherein property has specific development restraints: the applicant is required to provide a back-up area for the garages inasmuch as there is no alley; no access is allowed to the units from West Boulevard; and the irregular shape of the property Balboa creates development constraints. Mr. Hewicker indicated that he was not informed that the existing restaurant on the subject property had outdoor speakers. Mr. Schooler explained the specifications of the units as they distributed to the Planning were listed on the chart that was Commission. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. * Motion was made to approve General Plan Amendment No. 89- Motion 2(D), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 18, Amendment No. 688, Site Plan Review No. 55, and Tentative Map of Tract "A". No. 14120 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit Commissioner Di Sano stated that the project was well -designed on a unique lot, that the project has merit, and that it would be an encumbrance on the applicant to request 4 units when the zoning regulations allow 5 units. Commissioner Pers6n requested that the Planning Commission vote on each application separately. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, requested that General Plan Amendment 89-2(D), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 18, and Amendment No. 688 be voted on together for consistency to the General Plan. The maker of the motion agreed to vote on the items separately. ` The motion was amended to modify Condition No. 6, Tentative Amended Map of Tract No. 14120 as previously suggested by Mr. Webb, add Condition No. 17 stating that the applicant would be -15- ,COMMISSIONERS Ao�,% 'soo.on c+o� lq•�� oq� 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 8, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX responsible for trees damaged during construction, and add Condition No. 18 concerning in -lieu park dedication fees. Commissioner Glover did not support the motion based on the location of the development, the ingress/egress into the project, that five units on the lot is too much density for the subject property, and the Planning Commission should not be required to make a choice between the existing restaurant and the proposed project. Commissioner Pers6n supported General Plan Amendment No. 89-2(D), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 18, and Amendment No. 688, on the basis that the zone change from commercial to the MFR standards would be appropriate inasmuch as it would - enhance the neighborhood. Chairman Pomeroy addressed the development standards of the MFR District and the proposed project. Mr. Hewicker indicated that the applicant would be required to provide a guest parking space adjacent to the 7-11 convenience market to the west, a Encroachment Permit back-up area for' the garages, and an would be required to widen the driveway on 19th Street. Chairman Pomeroy supported the motion on the basis of the project's design at the subject location. Commissioner Pers6n did not support the project based on the location of the project, the density, bulk, and the lot's constraints. Commissioner Glover indicated her opposition to separate votes on the individual items. Substitute Motion was made and voted on to separate the votes on.the Motion individual items. MOTION CARRIED. Ayes * * * No * Motion was voted on to approve General Plan Amendment No. Absent 89-2(D) (Resolution No. 1217), Local Coastal Program Ayes * * * * * Amendment No. 18 (Resolution No. 1218), and Amendment No. No * 688 (Resolution No. 1219), subject to the findings and conditions Absent in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. Motion was voted on to approve Site Plan Review No. 55 subject Ayes Noes " * * * * to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION Absent * FAILED. -16- .� S "f+ COMMISSIONERS March 8, 1990 MINUTES N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL lNOEX Discussion ensued with respect to the foregoing motion's failure to pass, and Commissioner Pers6n's suggested that Site Plan Review No. 55 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 14120 be referred to the City Council. Discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Edwards' suggestion that the Site Plan Review and Tentative Map be continued to the April 5, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and Mr. Hewicker with respect to the feasibility of voting on Tentative Map of Tract No. 14120. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. * * Motion was voted on to approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. Ayes * * * * 14120 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Noes Absent * MOTION FAILED. Substitute motion was made to deny the Tentative Map of Tract Motion * * * No. 14120 based on findings suggested by Ms. Flory: that the site Ayes * * * * is not appropriate for the density being proposed; the design of Noes * the project has problems from a planning standpoint in the areas Absent of building mass, bulk, and parking; and the Planning Commission is not satisfied with the plan of the subdivision. Commissioner Pers6n confirmed that the findings are appropriate for the subject site. He emphasized that he approves of the architecture of the building; however, he said the project is not appropriate for the subject site. Motion voted on, MOTION FAILED. Motion * Motion was made to continue Site Plan Review No. 55 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 14120 to the April 5, 1990, Planning Commission meeting on the basis that seven Commissioners would be attending the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Pers6n opposed the motion on the basis that there ,- , : is no guarantee that seven Commissioners would be available on April 5, 1990, to address the items. He suggested that the items be referred to the City Council. Commissioner Pers6n and Commissioner Edwards discussed the feasibility of recommending ,,. that the City Council review the subject items with the applicant's approval, or to continue the items to April 5, 1990. -17- 0 COMMISSIONERS o>�''�'so,°Oc� c���N G �� � �y� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 8, 1990 ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Pomeroy did not support the motion to continue the Motion items. Commissioner Edwards withdrew the substitute, motion. Withdrawn In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Schooler reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he agreed to pass Site Plan Review No. 55 and the Tentative Map of Tract No. 14120 to City Council. Mr. Schooler asked if be could include the Encroachment Permit inasmuch as the Site Plan would be considered by the City Council. Chairman Pomeroy affirmatively agreed. Commissioner Pers6n explained that the applicant would waive any rights on the Subdivision Map Act as the result of the action by the Planning Commission. Mr. Schooner agreed on the basis that regardless of the action that was taken by the Planning Commission, the items would have been further reviewed'by the City Council at a later date. 'Motion Motion was made and voted on to refer Site Plan Review No. Ayes * * * * * * 55 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 14120 to the City Council ,Absent * based on the Planning Commission's tied votes to approve and deny said items. The applicant waived his rights under the Subdivision Map Act with respect to the action taken -by the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89-2(D) LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 18 AMENDMENT NO. 688 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A. Environmental Document: Accept the environme ital document, making the following findings and requiring the following mitigation measure: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and • Council Policy K 3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental. impact. -18- �- COMMISSIONERS A A o o�cP F •P�, .pow G� N •i ,�� .e. r, ?' MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 8, 1990 ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That based on information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and supportive materials thereto, that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, it will not have a significant adverse impact on the - environment. 5. Deleted. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. All exterior living areas (e.g. balconies and patios) which lie within the 65 CNEL contour shall be constructed with 6-foot high noise barriers. The noise barrier shall be continuous (no opening or gaps) and have a minimum density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. The walls may be stud walls with cement plaster exterior, 1.4 inch plate glass, 5.8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or any combination of these materials. Wood and other materials may be used if specifically designed as noise barriers. 2. All units exposed to exterior noise levels higher than 65 CNEL shall be constructed so as to achieve interior noise levels no greater than 45 CNEL. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a qualified licensed engineer practicing in acoustics shall review final architectural plans to determine what building upgrades will be necessary to achieve this standard. The Building Department shall require that such upgrades be incorporated into the plans 'prior to issuance of the Building permit. Most likely the only building upgrade that will be required is higher rated windows such as 3.16 inch single pane glass for all windows that are exposed to Newport Boulevard. 3. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, a qualified engineer practicing in acoustics shall verify to the Planning Department that the above requirements have x been met. 4. Compliance with these mitigation measures shall be verified by the Planning and Building Departments prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. -19- COMMISSIONERS oA� s� so`o �Fs (C) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 8, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL lNOEX B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 89-2(D1: Adopt oluti on Resolution No. 1217, recommending it to the City Council, Resolution luti as set forth in the attached Resolution. No. 1217 C WCAaLSaASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT Adopt Resolution No. 1218, recommending it to the City Resolution Council, as set forth in the attached Resolution. No. 1218 D. AMENDMENT NO 688 Adopt Resolution No. 1219 Resolutior recommending approval of Amendment No. 688 to the No. 1219 City Council. A. Traffic Study No 63 (Public Hearin El Item No.6 Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to pe t the TS 63 construction of 90 additional dwelling units on prope located in Area 2 of the Villa Point Planned Comm ; and the A705 of an Environmental Impact Report TTM14055 acceptance AND CRDP 17 B. Amendment.No. Public He ri approved (Noticed as Amendment No. 698) Request to amend the V' a Point Planned Community t reclassify the subject property from Development Plan so as to "Multi -Family Residential" "Office/Visitor Serving ercial" 'o establish 90 elling units as the maximum allowable and mum --r of dwellin units permitted in Area 2. AND T nt ry a of Tract No. 14(Public He rip two existing parcels of land containing 9.3± f R hest to subdivide ores, into a single lot for a 90 unit residential condominium .- development; and I w AND -20- �c r .. t s , •s TY OF NE FORT B. ACH . �'':,.& ,,,i MINUTES C .,.�CIL MEMBERS April 23, 1990 _IN[ Motion x Council Member Watt made a substitute PCA 705 motion with all of the above, except that Villa Pt four (4) units (at the southwest corner) be eliminated or repositioned, so as to accommodate the placement of a noise wall the furthest northeast toward the garage locations, and thus enhance the view and accommodate the clean up and the internal open space. Dave Dmohowski, upon invitation by the Council, approached the podium and stated that The Irvine Company would be opposed to the foregoing motion, as eliminating any further units would have a significant impact on the project, and the intended result would give no real benefit to the 1�iew of the Bluffs through the Bay. Ayes x x x Afte further discussion, the substitute Noes x x x motion ads by Council Member We was voted o resulting in a tie -vote, and therefore, a motion FAILED. Ayes x x x x x The motion mad by Council Member Turner Noes x was voted on and rried. yr Mayor Plummer advised that roprosentative from "Tree the California Department o£ res try was in the City audience, and presented the Cit with a special U.S.A." "Tree City" flag, and a Plaque. ".... the Division of Forestry for the State o California and National Arbor Day Foundation prod ims that the City of Newport Beach is recognized fN their dedication and pioneering spirit to the tter management of their City foreets....meeting e minimum standards of having a legally constitut 'Tree Board,' or Department, a community tree ordinance, a comprehensive community forestry program supported by a minimum $2 per capita, and an Arbor Day Proclamation and public tree planting ceremony, and having met these four standards the City can take its place of honor as the fourth City in Orange County to proudly fly a banner as a 'TREE CITY, U.S.A."' 2. Mayor Plummer opened the public hearing CPA 89-2( regarding GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89- 45/94 2(D) - A request of Todd Scheeler and Steve McCluer, to amend the Lind Use Element of the General Plan so as to change the land designation of 1900 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner of 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, in Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi-. Family Residential;" and the acceptance of an Environmental Document; AND Volume 44 - Page 131 ~'TY OF NEW ,RT H ''ACH 1990 MINUTES LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 18 - LCP Amndfi Request to amend the Local Coastal'Program • Land Use Plan so as to change the land use designation from "Retail and Service . ••• Commercial" to "Multi.Family Residential;" • _. AND Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 90-17, being, Ord 90-1; Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF �•••: :`.• THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A — • PORTION OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 9 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1900 WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD ON THE .. NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD, FROM THE "'4i•'• SP-6 DISTRICT TO THE SP-6 (MFR) SPR S••': '.'-'i.:'"'•" DISTRICT AND TO ESTABLISH ON THE DISTRICTING MAP, 5 FOOT FRONT YARD • SETBACKS ON BOTH THE 19TH STREET AND "�"''�"''"' ,`�'•''� .•�'� WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD FRONTAGES • (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT N0. PCA 688 688 AND i ��:: • - SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 55 - Request to ... •� approve a site plan review so as to permit ' ction of a five unit residential the constru '.'••r`' condominium development and related garages, located on property to be rezoned • ., .. to the SP-6 (MFR) SPR DISTRICT; AND ,.•;,:*. .; TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 14120 - Request TMpT 141 to subdivide two existing lots into a single lot for a five unit residential condominium development and related garages, located on property to be rezoned 3 to the Sp-6 (MFR) SPR District. Report from the Planning Department. i The City Manager summarized the action 3 taken by the Planning 'Commission on •' March 8, stating they approved CPA 89-2(D); ' LOP Amendment No. 18, and proposed ,,��''F• Ordinance No. 90-17 (PGA 688) by a 5 - 1 •••7•.;'• '. vote; adding that on Site Plan Review No. 55 and the Tentative Map of Tract No. . 14120, (showing the method which the area "�•` would be subdivided) they tied on a three • to three vote, and made no conclusive •• m'•'. decision with respect to recommendations, !'�•�i: but following the failure on the tie vote, • they unanimously voted to recommend the •,�;;,, subject items to the City Council. Some of _.' ,F .: ;;:�•:;:. the Planning Commissioners expressed that ,,.,;�:%' p•:..,,;.;.,;'`;;`,•... .;;•.. .;.;;;:.; the tie vote was the result of the size, + '• •• shape and limited access to the property '• - .. which made the site unsuitable for as many ' as five residential condominium units. He advised that this is a five -unit • - Z residential condominium project; there are two lots on which currently a small ' ;�i ., •, restaurant is located and will be torn down and removed, and the General Plan changes •y':•n Volume 44 - Page 132 ' 4 J s I d .. _STY OF NEWt�„n RT B" ACH COI°IL MEMBERS GN�N ne loon MINUTE$ INIVY ROLL CALLN N-- - the area from retail -service commercial to GPA 89-2( multiple -family residential. In conclusion, he stated it does meet all off- street parking requirements and height requirements of the new HFR Zoning. Todd Scheeler, 500 N. Newport Boulevard, Architect for the project, addressed the Council with regard to Condition No. 6 of "p -_-_tive May of Itntt No-14129," stating that initially, the Public Works Department did not quite understand what was going in the front yard along Balboa Boulevard, and this Condition can be shortened to say that "nothing will be higher than 2' high in the front yard setback along Balboa Boulevard•" In response to the foregoing, and Council comments, the Public Works Director stated that Condition No. 6 could read: "That the intersection of 19th Street and the driveway be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping and Walls within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height." Mr. Schooler continued that this project is unique; one of the first MFR projects on the Peninsula; and he feels that it is well designed and meets all of the intent of the MFR Zoning. He added that this project is -- compatible with existing projects on 19th Street 'in height and size, and hopes that the Council will approve the project. In answer to Council inquiry, Mr. Scheeler stated that they would be putting in new curbs, gutters and 9 foot 6 inch sidewalks on Balboa Boulevard, and 5 foot wide sidewalks on 19th Street. Jack Hardy, 1828 W. Balboa Boulevard, addressed the Council, stating that this _ area is commercial, but behind it is residential, citing traffic impaction from more people, and that this was not the intent of downzoning. He did not feel that the City should be changing zones just because of the design of the building. Tom Hyans, 217 19th Street, addressed the Council stating that he is here to complain about this project and read a prepared statement for the record, which reads, in part ...... the proposed subdivision of this •. property will permit a residential density grossly in excess of that existing or yv Volume 44 - Page 133 52- (�y, a IEWr)RT E ACH ,.. COU7ObIL 7, c' ..a.�:�' MINUTES , April 23, 1990 permissible by the new General Plan Amendments.... that this project is inappropriate for the neighborhood, particularly as there are lots on the block which will now, or in the future support only one residential unit as a result of the new zoning ... We believe two separate buildings with airspace between, fronting on 19th Street is appropriately suited to the character of the neighborhood." Paul Driscoll, 207 19th Street, addressed the-Coucil, stating he was concerned about the%developer putting in a chain -link fence up against the existing trees behind his property, and the lack of turn -around space for cars. Pat Hilfka, 1825 vilelle Place, addressed the Council, stating that her units were built by Todd Scheeler, who designs beautiful buildings. She commented her concern is the number of units and related traffic and parking problems from the proposed project, adding that as 19th Street is one-way, cars must turn in at 18th Street, and that means cars from the proposed project are going to come down Vilelle Place before turning into their respective driveways. Todd Scheeler, Architect, addressed Mr. Driscoll's concern about the trees, stating that the trees are not within the proposed project's property; and the units will not be sold as rental units, but owner - occupied, as they will not be financially feasible to rent. With regard to Ms. Hilfka's concern, he stated that currently on 19th Street there is parking area along the frontage of the proposed development, and garages will be there exiting onto 19th Street. Also, he advised they will be providing three guest spaces on -site for the property. Mr. Scheeler addressed the density of the property, stating that during the Planning Commission.hearings on the MFR all the lots were investigated and it was found that the majority of the lots were around 2500 sq. ft. that had duplexes and the ones that were larger were approximately one unit per 1200 sq. ft. He added that the amount of land in the proposed development amounts to 5-1/2 units. The public hearing was closed, after it was determined that no one'else wished to speak to this issue. volume 44 - Page 134 ;PA 89-2 4 P f� ; �. •••rY.•T ' rY'• lri4 iflMP•r; ••Trb� : ' �i.:. '•.rr. r. �: •..afrc:k RIM l_�-rY OF NEW �, � B. ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS ' MINUTES MISAP .__.. ea 1ocn INDEX HULL (:ALL- x Discussion ensued, wherein Council Member GPA 89-2(I Motion Strauss commented that he could not support the project with regard to the density, and bulk; therefore, motion was made to deny the project subject to the Findings for Denial on page 5 of the staff report. x Substitute motion was made by Council Motion Member Hart to approve the project, subject to certain conditions, as follows: The project be scaled down to a total of four (4) units. add language to Condition No. 6 on 'handwritten' page 35.-Landscaping Ead wall, within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height above too o curb elevation; that Park In -Lieu Fees be paid; condition the project to have a 6 foot sidewalk on 19th Street due the fact that it is a heavily used street by pedestrians; and add some patios and green area to make the project look more family - unit residential. Discussion ensued, wherein the Planning Director suggested that if it is the desire of the City Council to approve the residential designation for this property, the General Plan ahead be changed, zoning be established and amend the Land Use Plan to establish a residential designation MFR, and allow 1800 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, for the four dwelling units on the site; deny the Tentative Map of Tract No. 14028 and Site Plan Review No. 55, and require - the developer to come back with a now _ tentative map and a new site plan to the _ Planning Commission. The City Attorney advised that there is a proposed ordinance with this project that would have to be amended and the ordinance could be introduced tonight for first reading, and pass to second reading on May 14. He added that the Council could amend the General Plan to designate the site as residential, and with the reduction from five units to four, Mr. Scheeler has the option of bringing back a parcel map to the Planning Commission, rather than a tentative tract map, and this would eliminate further review by the City Council. Discussion ensued, wherein Todd Scheeler, Architect, addressed the Council stating that he would be agreeable to four units if, he could be assured that he could get the �,-:r•:- project approved. y^r Volume 44 - Page 135 a M ,, i i i ..... - i i i� ) • I T Y OF NEYirORT E _ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS ont r 1AA1April 23. 1990 MINUTES uvv The City Attorney advised that the GPA 89 following would occur: The ordinance would be introduced tonight with a first reading with an MFR SIR 1600 designation, with second reading and adoption on May 14. The Planning Commission will have a more limited ability to reject the proposed project and they cannot reject it based on the number of units, but could reject it based on some other findings, i.e. subdivision map. The parcel map and site plan review would be all that is required to go back to the Planning Commission for review. Council Member Hart withdrew her substitute motion in the foregoing. Motion x Discussion ensued, wherein, Council Member All Ayes Hart made a new substitute motion, as follows: (a) 1. Adopt Resolution No. 90- Res 90 36, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 89- 2(D), and accepting the Environmental Document; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 90- Res 90 37, approving an amendment to the Local Coastal Program Land Use _ Plan so as to change the - land use designation of - the property located at 1900 West Balboa Boulevard from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential;" 3. Introduce proposed Ord 90 ORDINANCE NO. 90-17; Introd pass to second reading on May 14, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY • COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 9 SO AS TO RECIASSIFY THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1900 WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD, THE NORTH WESTERLY CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD, r r Volume 44 - Page 136 k � ' . 4 k4 — ... • i Ip , - .. %.,. M. X Zell ;%v (1TY OF NEWP,,Y,RT B"ACH 23, 1990 MINUTES FROM THE SP6 DISTRICT TO THE SP6-HFR (1600) SPR DISTRICT AND TO ESTABLISH ON THE DISTRICTING MAP, 5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACKS ON BOTH THE 19TH STREET AND NEST BALBOA BOULEVARD FRONTAGES [PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 6881; mul The project be scaled down to a total of four (4) units, add language to Condition No. 6 on 'handwritten' page 35-- "Landscaping and walls within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in heieht above top of curb elevation;" that Park In -Lieu Fees be paid; condition the project to have a 6 foot sidewalk on 19th Street due to the fact that it is a heavily used street by pedestrians; add some patios and green area to make the project look more family -unit residential. 3. Mayor Plummer opened the Public hearing regarding Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 90-16. being, CPA 89-2(➢ Ord 90-16' Zoning (94) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT' BEACH MUNICIPAL 'CODE "SO AS TO REGULATE TRANSFERS OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN NONRESIDENTIAL AREAS [PLANNING PCA 703 COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 703). from the Planning Department. The ty Manager explained that the Generpl Plan t City adopted in October. 1988, provided or the ability to :ansfer development hts, aubj ect to pr 'isions o£ the Municip Code. He added hat as there were no p visions the proposed ordinance iLthe presented to be consistent wuirement of the General Plan. t a use permit is necessarhe nsfer of development subject to "J. R i d Fin, listed the proposed ordinance. Volume 44 - Page 137 4 IS Q ((D CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: office of Planning and Research ❑ 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange Public Services Division P.O.Box838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach . Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 926591768 Date received for filing at OPR: The review period will close on FPbniary 21 1990 Name of Project: General Plan Amendment 89-2(D) , .Amendment No. 688 Project Location: 1900 WBAlQPa Boulevard, • Newport Beach, CA 92663 Demolition of anexisting restaurant, and construction of a five Project Description unit condominium project. ures and Findingthe Environmental Affairs . Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to proced guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures: See attached Initial Study. Initial Study Prepared By: ;" j' City of Newport Beach and is available for review at: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA Title Principal Planner Date:January 22, 1990 Signature: M Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or - temperature, or any change in climate. either locally or regionally? 3- Water_ Will the proposal result in: a Changes in currents, or the course seiof 7C .direction of water movements, in marine or fresh waters? b. Changes inorthdrainage patterns, e rate and amount IfX surface runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality. including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? g Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount f water otherwise available for public water supplies? 3.!'TAExposure of people or property to water .related hazards such as flooding or tidal 1,•a• waves? yin - 2 - b.. M I 4 1 3� , (0) Yes Maybe No 9, Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Increase in the rate of use of any natural L` a. resources? 10_ Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of a, hazardous substances (including, but not• or limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals an accident or radiation) in the event of upset conditions? _ b. .Possible interference .> response p lan or emergency.evacuatiou plan? 11 population. Will the proposal alter the location, the human �( distribution, density, or growth rate of _ L� population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing 12. a demand for additional housing? or create 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional �( vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — C. Substantial impact upon existing trans- \/ portation systems? 1. Alterations to present patterns of circula- X tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?_ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,caJ bicyclists, or p 14. public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- eri+mental services in any of the following areas: - 4 - 0� Yes Maybe No 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? — 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an `) impact upon the quality or quantity of existing A recreational opportunities? — 20. Cultural Resources. a. will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? — b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? — c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? n d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact _ area? 21. Mandatory Findings of -Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of X California history or prehistory? Y� MITIGATION MEASURES 1_ All exterior living areas (e.g. balconies and patios) which lie within the 65 CNEL contour shall be constructed with 6-foot high noise barriers. The noise barrier shall be continuous (no opening or gaps) and have a minimum density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. The walls may be stud walls with cement plaster rior bination 1.4 nch th plate se gl a s, 5.8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or any Wood and other materials may be used if specifically designed as noise barriers. noise levels highe r than 65 CNEL shall be 2. All units exposed to exterior constructed so as to achieve interior noise levels no greater t45 d acoustical engmeanshallCreEvt w Prior afi to issuance of a building permit, qualified caades will be necessary to inal architectural plans to determine what building hall require that such upgrades achieve this standard. The BuildingDepartment be incorporated into the plans prior to issuance of the Building permit. Most likely the only building upgrade that will be required is higher "rated windows such as 3.16 inch single pane glass for all windows that are exposed to Newport Boulevard. 3. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, a qualified engineer practicing in acoustics shall verify to the Planning Department that the above requirements have been met. MITIGATION MONITORING Compliance with these mitigation measures shall be verified by the Planning and Building Departments prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. -3;74� r� PLT ED\GPA89-3C.IS !�5 + TY OF NEWPORT BOACH COUNCIL Gay q� F� ROLL CALL Motion MINUTES d+ C0 \ April 23, 1990 Council Member Watt made a substitute x motion with all of the above, except that four (4) units (at the southwest corner) be eliminated or repositioned, so as to accommodate the placement of a noise wall the furthest northeast toward the garage locations, and thus enhance the view and accommodate the clean up and the internal open space. Ayes I I x l x Noes x Ayes Noes I xI xl x Dave Dmohowski, upon invitation by the Council, approached the podium and stated that The Irvine Company would be opposed to the foregoing motion, as eliminating any further units would have a significant impact on the project, and the intended result would give no real benefit to the �aew of the Bluffs through the Bay. x Afte further discussion, the substitute x x motion ade by Council Member Watt was voted o� resulting in a tie -vote, and therefore, he motion FAILED. Vag x I I The motion mad by Council Member Turner was voted on and Bqrried. Mayor Plummer advised that I\ly�cons entative from the California Department ofry was in the audience, and presented theith a special "Tree City" flag, and a ".... the Division of Forestry for theo California and National Arbor Day Foundroc ims that the City of Newport Beach is ized their dedication and pioneering sto the tter management of their City fo... meeting he minimum standards of having ly constitut 'Tree Board,' or Department, a community tree ordinance, a comprehensive community forestry program supported by a minimum $2 per capita, and an Arbor Day Proclamation and public tree planting ceremony, and having met these four standards the City can take its place of honor as the fourth City in Orange County to proudly fly a banner as a 'TREE CITY, U.S.A."' 2. Mayor Plummer opened the public hearing regarding GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89- 2(D) - A request of Todd Schooler and Steve McCluer, to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to change the land designation of 1900 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner of 19th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, in Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi - Family Residential;" and the acceptance of an Environmental Document; AND Volume 44 - Page 131 PCA 705 Villa Pt "Tree City U.S.A." GPA 89-2(D)l 45/94 OTY OF NEWPORT CH COUNCIL MEMULMb April 23, 1990 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 18 - LCP Amnd#18 Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so as to change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential;" AND Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 90-17, being, Ord 90-17 Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 9 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1900 WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD ON THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD, FROM THE SP-6 DISTRICT TO THE SP-6 (MFR) SPR DISTRICT AND TO ESTABLISH ON THE DISTRICTING MAP, 5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACKS ON BOTH THE 19TH STREET AND WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD FRONTAGES [PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. PCA 688 688]; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 55 - Request to approve a site plan review so as to permit the construction of a five unit residential condominium development and related garages, located on property to be rezoned to the SP-6 (MFR) SPR DISTRICT; AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 14120 - Request TMpT 14120 to subdivide two existing lots into a single lot for a five unit residential condominium development and related garages, located on property to be rezoned to the SP-6 (MFR) SPR District. Report from the Planning Department. The City Manager summarized the action taken by the Planning Commission on March 8, stating they approved CPA 89-2(D); LCP Amendment No. 18, and proposed Ordinance No. 90-17 (PCA 688)by a 5 - 1 vote; adding that on Site Plan Review No. 55 and the Tentative Map of Tract No. 14120, (showing the method which the area would be subdivided) they tied on a three to three vote, and made no conclusive decision with respect to recommendations, but following the failure on the tie vote, they unanimously voted to recommend the subject items to the City Council. Some of the Planning Commissioners expressed that the tie vote was the result of the size, shape and limited access to the property which made the site unsuitable for as many as five residential condominium units. He advised that this is a five -unit residential condominium project; there are two lots on which currently a small restaurant is located and will be torn down and removed, and the General Plan changes Volume 44 - Page 132 M +STY OF N�WPORT B4ACH MINUTES 23. 1990 the area from retail -service commercial to multiple -family residential. In conclusion, he stated it does meet all off- street parking requirements and height requirements of the new MPR Zoning. Todd Schooler, 500 N. Newport Boulevard, Architect for the project, addressed the Council with regard to Condition No. 6 of "E. Tentative Map of Tract No. 14120," stating that initially, the Public Works Department did not quite understand what was going in the front yard along Balboa Boulevard, and this Condition can be shortened to say that "nothing will be higher than 2' high in the front yard setback along Balboa Boulevard." In response to the foregoing, and Council comments, the Public Works Director stated that Condition No. 6 could read: "That the intersection of 19th Street and the driveway be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping and walls within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height." Mr. Schooler continued that this project is unique; one of the first MPR projects on the Peninsula; and he feels that it is well designed and meets all of the intent of the MPR Zoning. He added that this project is compatible with existing projects on 19th Street in height and size, and hopes that the Council will approve the project. In answer to Council inquiry, Mr. Schooler stated that they would be putting in new curbs, gutters and 9 foot 6 inch sidewalks on Balboa Boulevard, and 5 foot wide sidewalks on 19th Street. Jack Hardy, 1828 W. Balboa Boulevard, addressed the Council, stating that this area is commercial, but behind it is residential, citing traffic impaction from more people, and that this was not the intent of downzoning. He did not feel that the City should be changing zones just because of the design of the building. Tom Hyans, 217 19th Street, addressed the Council stating that he is here to complain about this project and read a prepared statement for the record, which reads, in part, ..."the proposed subdivision of this property will permit a residential density grossly in excess of that existing or Volume 44 - Page 133 GPA 89-2(D) OTY OF NEWPORT �_ 4ra] A OUNCIL MEMBERS \\\\ems April 23, 1990 permissible by the new General Plan Amendments.... that this project is inappropriate for the neighborhood, particularly as there are lots on the block which will now, or in the future support only one residential unit as a result of the new zoning ... We believe two separate buildings with airspace between, fronting on 19th Street is appropriately suited to the character of the neighborhood." Paul Driscoll, 207 19th Street, addressed the Coucil, stating he was concerned about the developer putting in a chain -link fence up against the existing trees behind his property, and the lack of turn -around space for cars. Pat Hilfka, 1825 Vilelle Place, addressed the Council, stating that her units were built by Todd Schooler, who designs beautiful buildings. She commented her concern is the number of units and related traffic and parking problems from the proposed project, adding that as 19th Street is one-way, cars must turn in at 18th Street, and that means cars from the proposed project are going to come down Vilelle Place before turning into their respective driveways. Todd Schooler, Architect, addressed Mr. Driscoll's concern about the trees, stating that the trees are not within the proposed project's property; and the units will not be sold as rental units, but owner - occupied, as they will not be financially feasible to rent. With regard to Ms. Hilfka's concern, he stated that currently on 19th Street there is parking area along the frontage of the proposed development, and garages will be there exiting onto 19th Street. Also, he advised they will be providing three guest spaces on -site for the property. Mr. Schooler addressed the density of the property, stating that during the Planning Commission hearings on the MFR all the lots were investigated and it was found that the majority of the lots were around 2500 sq. ft. that had duplexes and the ones that were larger were approximately one unit per 1200 sq. ft. He added that the amount of land in the proposed development amounts to 5-1/2 units. The public hearing was closed, after it was determined that no one else wished to speak to this issue. Volume 44 - Page 134 Wq7*r GPA OTY OF NEWPORT B&CH MINUTES L CALL Motion Motion x x 23, 1990 Discussion ensued, wherein Council Member Strauss commented that he could not support the project with regard to the density, and bulk; therefore, motion was made to deny the project subject to the Findings for Denial on page 5 of the staff report. Substitute motion was made by Council Member Hart to approve the project, subject to certain conditions, as follows: The project be scaled down to a total of four (4) units, add language to Condition No. 6 on 'handwritten' page 35--Landscaping and walls within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height above top of curb elevation; that Park In -Lieu Fees be paid; condition the project to have a 6 foot sidewalk on 19th, Street due the fact that it is a heavily used street by pedestrians; and add some patios and green area to make the project look more family - unit residential. Discussion ensued, wherein the Planning Director suggested that if it is the desire of the City Council to approve the residential designation for this property, the General Plan should be changed, zoning be established and amend the Land Use Plan to establish a residential designation MFR, and allow 1800 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, for the four dwelling units on the site; deny the Tentative Map of Tract No. 14028 and Site Plan Review No. 55, and require the developer to come back with a new tentative map and a new site plan to the Planning Commission. The City Attorney advised that there is a proposed ordinance with this project that would have to be amended and the ordinance could be introduced tonight for first reading, and pass to second reading on May 14. He added that the Council could amend the General Plan to designate the site as residential, and with the reduction from five units to four, Mr. Schooler has the option of bringing back a parcel map to the Planning Commission, rather than a tentative tract map, and this would eliminate further review by the City Council. Discussion ensued, wherein Todd Schooler, Architect, addressed the Council stating that he would be agreeable to four units if he could be assured that he could get the project approved. Volume 44 - Page 135 89-2(D) OTv OF NEWPORT a :.ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS OyL ani r rei 1 A G April 23, 1990 i wt The City Attorney advised th7with following would occur: The ordinan be introduced tonight with a first with an MFR SPR 1600 designatiosecond reading and adoption on May Planning Commission will have a more limited ability to reject the proposed project and they cannot reject it based on the number of units, but could reject it based on some other findings, i.e. subdivision map. The parcel map and site plan review would be all that is required to go back to the Planning Commission for review. Council Member Hart withdrew her substitute motion in the foregoing. Discussion ensued, wherein, Council Member Motion x Hart made a new substitute motion, as All Ayes follows: (a) 1. Adopt Resolution No. 90- Re: 36, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 89- 2(D), and accepting the Environmental Document; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 90- Re: 37, approving an amendment to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so as to change the land use designation of the property located at 1900 West Balboa Boulevard from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential;" 3. Introduce proposed Or ORDINANCE NO. 90-17; In pass to second reading on May 14, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 9 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1900 WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD, THE NORTH WESTERLY CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD, Volume 44 - Page 136 o= > 90-37 1 90-17 :roduced ­,r" NE1kV'POR nEMBERS Ihf A S� April 23, 1990 r CH 14riar 'ES FROM THE SP6 DISTRICT TO GPA 89-2(D) THE SP6-MFR (1600) SPR DISTRICT AND TO ESTABLISH ON THE DISTRICTING MAP, 5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACKS ON BOTH THE 19TH STREET AND WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD FRONTAGES [PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 688]; AND The project be scaled down to a total of four (4) units, add language to Condition No. 6 on 'handwritten' page 35-- "Landscaping and walls within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height above top_ of curb elevation;" that Park In -Lieu Fees be paid; condition the project to have a 6 foot sidewalk on 19th Street due to the fact that it is a heavily used street by pedestrians; add some patios and green area to make the project look more family -unit residential. 3. Mayor Plummer opened the Public hearing Ord 90-16 regarding Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 90-16, Zoning being, (94) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REGULATE TRANSFERS OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN NONRESIDENTIAL AREAS [PLANNING PCA 703 COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 703]. from the Planning Department. The %y Manager explained that the General Plan t City adopted in October, 1988, provided or the ability to transfer development hts, subject to provisions of the Municip Code. He added that as there were no p visions the proposed ordinance is bein presented to be consistent with the r uirement of the General Plan. He advised t t a use permit is necessary for the nsfer of development rights, subject to Required Findings" a-i, listed the proposed ordinance. Volume 44 - Page 137 0, 7 t . L COUNCIL MEI Vt \2P Motion All Ayes f \� � April 23, 1990 nw-.r.a MINUTES The public hearing was closed after it waa determined that no one wished to address this issue. x Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. 90- 16, amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to regulate transfers of development rights in nonresidential areas. 4. Mayor Plummer opened the Public hearing jCDBG Funds/ regarding PROPOSED "STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY FY190-91 DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND PROPOSED USE OF (g7) FUNDS" FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, FISCAL YEAR 1990/91. Report from the Planning Department. Craig Bluell, Senior Planner, addressed the Council, stating that this year the City of Newport Beach has been given $402,000 in Community Development Block Grant Funds. He advised that Staff has reviewed the applications that were directed to the City by the various social service agencies, who have requested funds totaling $96,000. Co een Chapman, 16541 Gothard, Suite 105, Hun 'ngton Beach, representing Center for Creat ve Alternatives, (located in the Rea Center 'n Costa Mesa) addressed the Council with a ckground of some of the services that they rovide to Newport Beach, which include pr entation to students on the school cam sas in the Newport -Mesa District on d\hd g and alcohol use prevention; sul issues; self- esteem; stresnagement; and at the elementary scthese same types of issues at theel of understanding; kindergarten th d grade presentation of "Babes," wis drug and alcohol prevention prowith followup sessions to provide cri s intervention counseling. e adde that their organization ested an increase for funds to expaneir servic to provide counseling iiduals wit domestic violence and dbuse problem and thus prevent the less issue t t each community mustl with. Upon hearing no one else wishing to the Council, the public hearing was At Council's invitation, Craig Bluell' explained that the City has a limitation of $60,300 available to divide among the requests for social services, and to change any of the allocations would require Volume 44 - Page 138