Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/1980COMMISSIONERS Regular Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Place:. City Council Chambers! Time: 7:30 P.M. Date: January 10, 1980 X W O City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Present 1XIX x Absent MEMBERS Motion Ayes Wt Motion Ayes Absent 7:1 gh Coffin, City Attorney AFF MEMBER ames Hewicker, Planning Director red Talarico, Environmental Coordinator ob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator on Webb, Assistant City Engineer lenna Gipe, Secretary inutes Written By: Glenna Gipe x Motion was made to approve the minutes of the re- x x x x A gular Planning Commission meeting of December 20, 1979, with the revision on Page 9 of additional added comments made by Commissioner Allen. x Motion was made to continue Item No. 5, Offsite x x x x A Parking Agreement, to the regular Planning Com- mission meeting of January 24, 1980. Request to consider a Traffic Study for the pro- Item #1 posed construction of 140 apartment units on 10.6 gross acres. TRAFFIC STUDY LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 45 -10 (Resubdivision No. 311), and a APPROVED portion of Blocks 9�2 and 93, Ir- vine's Subdivision,ilocated at 1601 San Miguel Drive, on the northeasterly side of San Joaquin Hills Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive in Harbor View Hills (Baywood Apart- ments). COMMISSIONERS 9M W WE D 7 i N (D f/ C or S January 10, 1980 Of FROM MINUTES INDEX ZONE: s P -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company,Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Request to combine one parcel and a portion of AND Request to amend the Planned Community Development Item #2 Plan for Harbor expansion Area View Hills so as to permit the No. 8 (Baywood Apartments) of the AMENDMENT NO. 536 Planned Community for additional multi - family residential units, and the acceptance of an En- (Resubdivision No. 311), and a vironmental Document. R.ESOLU- CONDI- TION NO. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 45 -10 1� (Resubdivision No. 311), and a por- erly side of San Joaquin Hills tion of Blocks 92 and 93, Irvine's APPROVED Subdivision, located at 1601 San and San Miguel Drive in Harbor View Hills (Baywood Apartments). Miguel Drive, on the northeasterly side of.San Joaquin Hills Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive in Harbor View Hills (Baywood Apartments).. ZONE: P -C 1PPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach )WNER: Same as Applicant AND Request to combine one parcel and a portion of Item #3 3locks 92 and 93 of Irvine's Subdivision into one )uilding site so as to permit the expansion of the 3aywood Apartment complex on the property. RESUB- DIVISION 70. 637 _OCATION: Parcel No. 1,.Parcel Map 45 -10 (Resubdivision No. 311), and a APPROVED. portion of Blocks 92 and 93, Ir- CONDI- vine's Subdivision, located at 1601 TIONALLY San Miguel Drive, on the northeast- erly side of San Joaquin Hills Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive in Harbor View Hills (Baywood Apartments). -2- COMMISSIONERS[ January 10, 1980 MINUTES -��d 39DOWEa �NN 0 W N Zi t Beach ROLL CALL X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX 0 0` These items were heard concurrently,.due to thei elationship.) red Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated he necessary corrections. to the figures for the I phases of development inAhe Staff Report. he Public. Hearing continued regarding this item nd Joe Sarnecky, Irvine Company,lappeared before he Planning Commission and stated that on October , 1979, the.Irv.ine Company agreed to continue his project until such time as the City Council ook final action on General Plan Amendment 79 -1 nd that at that point in time the City Council educed the density of the 140 unit project to 8 units. He stated that his objective during is presentation was to describe the revised site lans for those 68 units, comment on assessments nd the Environmental Impact Study and identify ignificant merits of the project. He stated heir major objectives were to place every dwell - ng unit outside the limits of the 65 CNEL.contour nd reduce the.amount of export grading materials n the previous conceptual grading plan from 7,000 cubic yards to 0. He added that both ob- ectives were achieved. He relayed that their roposal is to build 68 2 bedroom apartment units n a 10k acre site, planned as a continuation of he existing apartments in terms bf layout, archi• ecture and landscape design, thus maintaining the heme and character of the existing Baywood Com- unity. He stated that the vehicular circulation lan is for access to the existing entrance into aywood from San Miguel Drive, left onto Baywood rive and left through the third parking lot into he project. He relayed that a covered car wash acility will be provided for the convenience, of he tenants, along with a separate container for ecyclable materials, both of which respond to onditions of approval and that their planning pro ides for fire access and an emergency vehicle ccess from MacArthur Boulevard. He added that he location for the fire access has been approved y the Fire Department, that emerg ncy vehicle access has been.provided as required and that there is a complete internalitrail system throughout the entire devellopment. He -3- COMMISSIONERS January 10, 1980 MINUTES aoin BiD y I City of Newport Beach R01 CALL MrT= INDEX stated that run -off and erosion will be controlled through the use of 2 desilting basins designed for a 25 year storm and that actual grading is planned to commence in May of 1980,. He added that the City's approval of the Planned Co.m.- ,imunity District Zoning Amendment to the Harbor !View Hills P -C Text, a Tentative Oarcel Map and an environmental document is tequested, that the Amendment to.the P -C Text is requested to re- flect the additional units allowed under the cur - rent General Plan., that the Traffic Study pre- Oared for the project complies with the criteria for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and that there are no critical intersections adversely affected by.the proposed development. He concluded that the Traffic Analysis prepared in a supplemental en vironmental report, average daily trips are reduc- d from 910 to 442 and p.m. peak is reduced from 4 to 41, representing a total reduction of 49% f the traffic volume generated from the 140 -unit ite plan, which significantly reduces the pos- �" sibility for internal roadway congestion; a con - ern raised during their October presentation. He lso concluded that the Baywood expansion as they ave proposed it requires that every dwelling unit e outside of the 65 CNEL contour, that the grad - ng concept provide for a balanced cut and fill ite, which means excess grading materials will of be hauled through City streets and that the ingular access through an existing parking lot nables them to preserve the row olf alder, rees located at the proposed secondary access nder the previous plan and the large meadow be- ween the proposed and existing community provides dditional open space, creating a sense of rest= ulness anal relaxation. He expressed his feeling hat this project is.consistent with the General lan and also consistent with all 'other City eoulations. a n response to a question posed by Commissioner eek regarding the 65 CNEL contour and berm, Mr. arnecky replied that the movement of the CNEL ontour was directly due to the landscape berm hat is there. -4- COMMISSIONERS I MINUTES January 10, 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by;Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Sarnecky replied that the barrier is a landscaped berm, that the overall site plan shows the actual location of the present 65 CNEL, that this is a situation which does not require a noise mitigation because of the fact that all the units are outside of the existing 65 CNEL and that a condition of approval by the staff requires them to have a noise engineer inspect the site at the time the building permits are issued. red Talarico, Environmental Co-ordinator, com- ented that the change from the existing to ul- imate CNEL is due to a number of .factors: the erming condition; the highway vol'pmes that willo ur when the highway is split in tihis location: a he increased federal regulations on noise pol- ution from automobiles that are anticipated be- ween now and the time of the ultimate 65 CNEL. James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented that there are no'structures proposed within the 65 3NEL zone. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Bill Foley of Larry Seaman and Associates replied that normally the noise studies for this .type of project show the noise levels at the ;ground level, but in this case, because the pri- mary cause of the reduction are changes in traf- fic volumes and changes in federal noise stan- dards rather than the barrier, it makes little difference where it is. He added that it would make more difference if the reduction were spec - ifically caused by the placement of a barrier. .In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin regarding the price of!the units, Mr. 5arnecky replied that the price for the units will be the same as the price curi^ently on the :market in Baywood. :Commissioner Thomas posed a question regarding Condition No. 39, to which Mr. Hew icker replied that the applicant will provide for the mainten- ance of the grease traps and Mr. Talarico further .Ibis COMMISSIONERS January 10, 1980 0 d a: c) co N City of Newr)ort Beach MINUTES INDEX ommented that the maintenance program must be re- iewed by the Director of General Services and ap- roved by staff and how it will be;done will be etermined at a'later date . n response to a further comment by Commissioner homas, Mr. Hewicker.replied that the program will equire that the owner of the apartment project be he one responsible for maintaining and cleaning ut the grease traps on a periodic basis. mmissioner Balalis requested that additional rding be added to Condition No. 39, to wit: uch review shall occur at least semi- annu.ally the expense of the property owner. ", to which e applicant agreed. ommissioner Allen commented regarding Condition o. 7, stating her understanding that the original impetus for the study of the traffic signal was • ue to the fact that-Lincoln School was directly cross San Miguel Drive and the Harbor View Home evelopment is on the other side; consequently, here are a lot of children that must cross that treet, and inquired.whether in the review of the eed for a traffic signal there is taken into ccount pedestrian use, and particularly school !hildren. on Webb, Assistant City. Engineer,;replied that his is one of the traffic warrants; however, t takes a very large volume to make the warrants olely on the pedestrian usage. He added that he warrants would need City approval. •ommissioner Allen posed.a question regarding ondition No. 48, to which Mr. Hewicker replied hat this project is one which maybe subject to temporary withholding of connection permit. e explained that County Sanitation District No. is currently in the process of prepairing and dopting an Ordinance which will do two things: provide for an increase in connection fees and provide for temporary curtailment of the ssuance of connection permits on certain projects • hich are tributary to the pump stdtion at the outh of Big Canyon. He commented that Sanitation istrict No. ,5 had a meeting last night, at which COMMISSIONERS 9 1 0 X �5(� 0 WipD 5 F m w CD i W x Vi D1 G January 10, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I III I I INDEX time the consideration of that particular Ordina- nace was continued to an adjourned meeting on January 15, 1980 at Newport City Hall. He added that the condition that they have attached to thi. Project with respect to the provision of sanitary sewer services are i- dentical to the conditions which were placed upon the ford= Aeronutronic pro- ject and are perfectly adequate to• handle this particular situation and provides for the appli- cant to provide verification from Sanitation Dis- trict No. 5 that sewer service will be available. He commented further that the moratorium that is being considered by Sanitation District No. 5 Will only'be in effect up until the time that the obtain the contract that will provide for the ca- pacity which could either take theform of a new pump station, a gravity flow line or a line down Jamboree Boulevard, with a new pump station. • Commissioner A -lien stated though there is a certain some projects be exempted that the approval of this fect the status in terms No. 5. 0 her understanding that amount of pressure that from this moratorium, project should not af- Df Sanitation District Mr. Hewicker commented that the action of the Planning Commission is only a recommendation to the City Council and would in no why affect Sani- tation District No. 5's activities!. He further commented that they will either: 1) try to de- velope language in their proposed Ordinance which will address the question of projects which have received their final planning approvals from the City; or 2) list the projects which are sub- ject to the moratorium and those which are not. Commissioner presentation design to be Allen commented stated that the consistent with -7- that Mr. Sarnecky's thrust of the re- the new General Plan 0 =F {0yy ��y0 n V� 7 � fly 7�C fp J January 10, 1980 Z Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 III I I INDEX was to remove. the units that were in the 65 CNEL and minimize grading, which redesigjn she con- sidered worthy of complementing. Mr. Talarico stated the correct wording for Con - dition No. 29, to wit:. "The existing landscape program shall be modified to include the concerns of Condition Nos. 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28 above." He commented that the intent is to maintain the existing character of the Baywood Apartment com- munity and integrate these concerns where practi- cable. Regarding Condition No. 36, Commissioner Thomas . requested that the notifications to the regional board be changed..from 10 days to 30 days, to which 10 the applicant agreed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Webb replied that first flush is pri- marily the first water that would run off from the parking lots normally carrying most of the grease and silt and other debris laying on the lot itself and the initial. time of concentration is the first 5 - 10 minutes before the catch -basin fills up to the extent that the grease traps capacity is e =xceeded. Commissioner McLaughlin stated her understanding that the first flush is the first hour, to which Mr. Webb replied that it depends on the design and size of the basin and the degree of the rainfall. Mr. Hewicker replied that this determination would be the responsibility of the General Services and Building Departments and if it is the intent that it contain the first hour run -off from the park- ing lot, it should be identified as that. Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make Ayes x x x x the findings as indicated in the Staff Report and Noes x approve the Traffic Study. Absent Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make Ayes x x XK x xthe findings as indicated in the Staff Report and Atrnt * approve the Negative Declaration and Environmental Document and adopt Resolution No. 1048, approving mendment No. 536 and recommend that the City Coun cil adopt same. 10 C MISSIONERSI.. MINUTES January 10, 1980 Iry o o m r y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ommissioner Thomas expressed his doubt regarding he logic of approving this development at the ime the sewer facilities are not under control, xpressing his feeling that doing so would be reating a crisis. Motion x Substitute Motion was made that this item be tabled until such time as the question of sewer ca pacity is settled or an agreement his reached to provide sewer capacity. Mr. Sarnecky expressed their opinion that the spe- cific conditions of approval address that issue adequately and that they would prefer that the Planning Commission go ahead with the project at this time. Motion x Amended Motion was made to deny Amendment No. 536. Commissioner Allen stated that she would not sup- port the motion, expressing her feeling that as long as the minutes reflect the discussion, that they realize Sanitation District No. 5 has an in- adequate capacity and that they realize that the Irvine Company as well knows that ;there is no ca- acity.at this time, then the overriding benefits of the project and the fact that.they are aware of the constraints, giving the opportunity to go ahea and begin their construction is reasonable. Commissioner Balalis expressed his agreement with Commissioner Allen's comment. ommissioner Beek inquired as to the lead time in- olved in waiting until Sanitation District No. 5 pproves this, to which Mr. Hewickeer replied that he process as far as Sanitation District No. 5 is concerned is.that they would not release the roject for construction until they had a ontract for the construction of either the gra- ity line or the new pump station and that the lea ime for Sanitation District No. 5 in order for them to accomplish their program could vary con - iderably, depending on whether they get the neces ary permits from the Coastal Commission. He fur- her commented that under the conditions that are o x m o m 7 � ACS N CD N January 10, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES I ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX 0 Noes IT Absent A� x x A175�e n t ttached to the resubdivision, they will not re- eive a building permit until Sanitation District: o. 5 is comfortable that capacitywill be avail - ble at the time that they complete the building nd even if they should err as to the time that he facility comes on line, there still is a con - ition that they have to go back to Sanitation istrict No. 5 a second time and get certification hat the capacity exists. Sarnceky commented that it would cause a delay approximately seven months to a;year in terms processing the necessary documents. mmissioner Beek inquired where they would be if e Planning Commission waited for'Sanitation Dist ct No. 5 to give their approval before the Plan - ng Commission gives theirs, to which Mr. Sarneck plied that there would be a b month delay beyond en they would approve the sewer. ommissioner Allen stated her understanding that t was building permits that could.not be pulled ntil the sewer approval, which means that this rading schedule, as illustrated on Page 4, beg.in - ing in May of 1980 would proceed regardless of he seiner situation and wouldn't need approval rom Sanitation District No. 5 until they were eady for building permits, to which Mr. Hewicker eplied that the schedule the Planning Commission as does not reflect Sanitation District No.5 con - Itraints and is based upon their ability to procee mmissioner Thomas commented that if it takes 2 ars to build the sewer line and the grading goes ead according to schedule, land could sit graded r a period of 2 years and will erode. mmissioner Balalis stated his preference to go ead with either approval or denial of this pro - ct. ended Motion was then voted on, which MOTION ILED. tion was.then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. -10- CCIMMISSICNNERS MINUTES January 10, 1980 �0d 0W�o a y � � N N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the findings as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report and approve Resubdivision No. 637, subject to the revised conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report and additionally that Condition No. 48 be amended to add, prior to the issuance of any building or grading Dermits. ". ommissioner Thomas stated that he would`.support he motion, but with the statement that he felt hat it is a poor precedent to go ahead and create his crisis and that he personally would not be arty to pushing through a project that later on ould solve a problem that was created by approvin project prior to the services being ready and vailable. Mr. Sarnecky commented that Condition No. 48 as • modified by Commissioner Beek would be acceptable and asked if the Planning Commission could go a- head and have the terms of the subdivision be for 24 months rather than 18 months, to which Mr. Hewicker replied that after the map is recorded, they could proceed with the building and grading at any time. Ayes Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent quest to establish one building site and elimi Item #4 to an interior lot 1_ine where one lot and a por- on of a second lot now exist so as to permit.the RESUB- modeling of the existing commercial building on DDIVISION e property for a new restaurant facility. NO. 6 CATION: A portion of Lot 2,and Lot 3, Bloc APPROVED U, Tract No. 323, located at 3520 CONDI- East Coast Highway, on the north- TIONALLY easterly side of East Coast.Highway between Narcissus Avenue and Orchid Avenue in Corona del Mar. ONE: C -1 • PPLICANT: Carmelo Manto, South Laguna -11- F. � w O D 3 F N V 7 G January 10, 1980 Of oven MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill, I INDEX bWIERi United California Bank as Trustee for Lola Bernice Baltz, Santa Ana James Hewicker,`Planning Director, :explained that this is a resubdivision which has been filed in rder to meet a previously imposed condition on i Use Permit. he Public Hearing was opened regarding this item nd Len Muir, Architect representiing Mr. Manto, ppeared before the Planning Commission and stated heir concurrence with the conditions in the Staff eport, with the exception of Condition No. 10, re uiring that an existing parkway tree be removed. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, replied that they felt that the type of tree and the root struc ure it had was raising the sidewalk and would con tinue to do so. • Commissioner Allen posed a question; to which Hugh Coffin, City Attorney, replied that an offsite par ing agreement was approved by the ;City Council; however, there was a problem with 'the Shell dealer He added that the size of the restlaurant has been peduced to coincide with the'numbe!r of parking spaces that are available and provides that if at some time the Shell Station does become available, then the restaurant can be expanded, but is now limited by the number of parking spaces available on-site and on the two offsite lots. • ames Hewicker, Planning Director, commented re- arding Condition No. 10 that the !item which went orward to the City Council was the offsite parkin greement and there is no evidence in the City ouncil minutes that this condition was deleted nd therefore the condition must remain. ommissioner Balali.s explained to the Applicant hat those conditions of Use Permit No. 1908 are hose relating to and applicable to Resubdivision o. 645. -12- COMMISSIONERS K 0 m �nt�lU D O 7CDC fp 7 January 10, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Motion x Motion was made that the Planning'Commi.ssion make Ayes Yx x xy x the findings indicated in Exhibit) "A" of the Staf Absent * Report and approve Resubdivision No. 645, subject to the conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report. * * * Request to accept.an offsite parking and recipro- cal access agreement for required;parking spaces in conjunction with a proposed conversion of an existing machine shop to.retail space in an exist ing structure on Mariners' Mile. LOCATION: A portion of Tract No. 919, locat- ed at 2902 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, westerly of Riverside Avenue on Mariners' Mile. • ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANTS: David R. Bryant and John P. Hooten Newport Beach OWNERS: John P. and Janet D. Hooten, Newpo Beach Motion Motion was made to continue this item to the re- Ayes x x x x gular Planning Commission meeting of January 24, Absent * 1980. * * * Request to establish a two unit residential condo- minium project on each of three adjoining lots in an R -2 District. LOCATION: Parcel No. 2, Parcel Map 119 -16, 17 (Resubdivision No. 571), Par- cel No. 1, Parcel Map 119 -17, 18 (Resubdivision No. 571), and Lot 24, Tract No. 444 „located at 211 and 215 La Jolla Drive and 218 • North Newport Boulevard, northerly of Santa Ana Avenue, between North Newport Boulevard and La Jolla Driu adjacent to Newport Heights. -13- Item #5 CONTIN- UED TO J NUARY 24, 1980 Item #6 USE PER- MI_TN 0 1923 APPROVED I CONDI- TIONALLY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 10, 1980 . W CD � r w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: Zachary Sham and Richard Kent, New- port Beach O'WNERS: Same as Applicants AND u equest to create one parcel of land so as to per- Item #7 mlit a two unit residential condominium project on the site. RESUB- DIVISION LIOCATION: Parcel No. 2, Parcel Map 119 -16, NO. 646 17 (Resubdivision No. 571), located at 211 La Jolla Drive, northerly of APPROVED Santa Ana Avenue between North New- C DI- port Boulevard and La Jolla Drive, TIONALLY adjacent to Newport!Heights. ZONE: R -2 PLICANTS: Zachary Sham and Richard Kent, New- port Beach NERS: Same as Applicants NGINEER:. Hall and Foreman, Inc., Santa Ana AND equest to create one parcel of land so as to per- Item #8 it a two unit residential condominium project on he site. RESUB- DinSION OCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 119 -17; 18 NN . 647 (Resubdivi.sion No. 571), located at 215 La Jolla Drive, northerly of APPROVED Santa Ana Avenue between North New- CONDI- port Boulevard and La Jolla Drive, TILLY adjacent to Newport:Heights. ONE: R -2 . PPLICANTS: Zachary Shari and Richard Kent, New- port Beach -14- COMMISSIONERS 1 MINUTES January 10, 1980 -i o c 3 o D N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX OWNERS: Same as Applicants ENGINEER: Hall and Foreman, Inc., Santa Ana 0 0 AND equest to create.one parcel of land so iit.a two unit residential condominium he site. as to per -1 Item #9 project on OCATION: Lot 24, Tract No. 444, located at 218 North Newport Boulevard., nor - therly of Santa Ana Avenue between North Newport Boulevard and La Jolla Drive, adjacent to Newport Heights. ONE: R -2 PPLICANTS: Zachary Sham and Richard Kent, Newport Beach WNERS: Same as Applicants NGINEER: Hall and Foreman, Inc., Santa Ana These items were.heard concurrently, due to their elationship.) he Public Hearing was opened regarding these item nd Richard Hogan; 1730 W. Coast Highway, appear- d before the Planning Commission to represent he applicants, Mr. Sham and Mr. Kent. He explain d that the project is a 6 -unit residential pro - ect consisting of 3 2- family dwellings on lots of ,585 sq. ft. for 2 of them and 3,021 sq._ ft. for he third one, for a total area of 10,891 sq. ft. e commented that each of the 2 -unit lots have off treet parking spaces and the property is zoned -2. He stated.the major concernswith the pro - osal to have 3 2 -unit condominiums is the consis- ency with the residential condomilnium projects rdinance dealing with both new condominium pro - ects and conversions of existing `dwellings to con ominfum projects. He stated that the standards or new projects and conversions differ in that -15- RESUB- -I-TIS10 N N0. 648 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY MINUTES January 10, 1980 �m � 5 � W � D 5 l i, �� s City of Newport Beach INDEX conversions' require 5,000 sq. ft. for a lot where-1 as new projects may be developed on lots conform- ing to the zoning code area requirements and that conversions also require a rental dwelling: unit vacancy rage of 5% where there is no such consi- deration necessary for new projects. He added that the City Attorney in his memo'has determined that this project may be considered a new project in that the units are not yet complete and final and that they have never been occupied; consequent ly, the standards that would apply.in this case Auld be the standards for a new project in that the lot size has to conform to the zoning require- ments as they existed at that time and the vacancy rate is not a consideration. He concluded that this project is consistent with recent City Counci action since the adoption by the City Council of the Conversions and New Projects Ordinance in that the City Council has approved since that time Re- subdivision No. 636 for a 2 -unit condominium ap- proval on October 9th at 122 43rd Street in West Newport for.a new project on a lothaving an area .f 2,550 sq. ft. and that these lots are all large than the lots that have been approved by the City ouncil since the adoption of the Ordinance. He dded that the second major concern in these pro - ects is the parking problem; the project provides off- street parking spaces for each of the 2 -unit omplexes, which is completely consistent with the rdinances of the City as they existed at the time hat building permits were originally taken out nd as they are now and that the ordinances of the ity still require only 3 parking spaces for 2 -uni evelopments of this size; however; the Pl.anning ommission in.recent approvals of condominiums has neen requiring 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit hich is not practical in this particular location ecause of.the topography. He added that he has I sked the applicant to provide a drawing which . hows the on- street parking that is available to his project and can be practically used only by he residents of this project and that the approva f this project as condominiums will in no way in- rease the parking need, nor woulddenial of the se Permit and the subdivisions decrease the park- • :ng need and it would require thatIthe units be sed for rentals which might very well increase -16- MINUTES January 10, 1980 0d man m o Co � n I 1; N i Gtv of Newport Beach the parking needs because of the need for doubling Up in order to pay the rent that.the applicants Would have to charge. He stated that he had dis- cussed the pr.oject..w.i.th the President of the Home- owners' Association and though he had not had a C hance to review it with his board, he reflected the attitude of the Board that thit project as dondomi.niums would in no way be detrimental to Jhe area any more than the rental units would be. Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the findings as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report and approve Use Permit No. 1923, sub - ject to the conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report. Commissioner Allen commented that this is an area Of the City that has no crisis parking problem and inquired whether the action of the Planning iommission regarding this project would set a pre- 4 for other projects that may come along in • c}ther areas of the City where there is a problem. dommissioner Balalis stated his understanding that the question that really stands is not what the Planning Commission wishes to do, but that the standards today reflect 3 parking spaces. 0 ames Hewicker, Planning Director, explained.that n each case the Planning Commission weighs each ndividual application on its own merits and that t would be unusual if the Planning Commission en- ountered another situation identical to this pro- ect and that the other unit on the Boulevard.ap- roved by the Planning Commission, although they equired 2 parking spaces per unit, was.at a time rior to the issuance of the building permit for he project and in this particular;case the build - ngs have already been built, so that the two situ tions are entirely different. Headded that al- hough in the future an applicant kay approach he Planning Commission and use this project as n example, the Planning Commission can illustrate hat this was a different situation. -17- INDEX. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 10, 1980 (Pty of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Allen inquired whether there are any other duplexes on which building permits have been issued that are likely to fall into the same cate- gory in terms of whether or not it.is a condominiu conversion or a:n.ew comdominium project, to which Mr. Hewic.ker replied that:.to his knowledge there its no similar situation at the present time. I;in response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas Mr. Hewicker replied that there may have tieen people at the time who were contemplating the construction of condominiums who then proceeded on the basis of building a duplex, but that the num- bers would be very few and that heidid not antici- pate that the Planning Commission would be faced with this identical situation in the future. Commissioner Beek stated his understanding that the City Code provides that when apiece of R -2 Property is subdivided, the lots must have at • Teast 5,000 sq. ft., which applies to new sub - divisions, and.there are old subdivisions which Already have houses on them and in this case the property was bought by CalTrans anq the existing buildings were leveled. He expressed his .feeling that it should have been regarded as a new subdi- vision, but the old existing lots were there and therefore substandard lots and substandard build- i,ngs have been allowed.to take place on that par- cel, which is taking advantage on the part of the Tandowner of a loophole in the law, building du- plexes on substandard lots which should not have 2 units on them, and now the landowner wants to convert the duplexes to condominiums with sub - standard parking by our current standards. He then stated that he could not support the motion. Commissioner Balalis expressed his feeling that uite some time ago the property was zoned R -2 And in saying that the Planning Commission erred in zoning the property and allowing substandard ots, such criticism was accepted;'however, the lternatives were looked at and substandard R -2 Tots was preferable to a motel or a commercial use in that area. r1 Im COMMISSIONERS � � m O N i W (D Vi 7 ROLL CALL 0 0 MINUTES January 10, 1980 of Newport Beach Mr. Hogan again appeared before the Planning Com- mission and.requested that the Planning Commissio not take out its frustration with the past action of the Planning Commission and City Council on th applicants tonight. He stated that the applicant have proceeded in good faith, based on what the Planning Commission and City Council approved in the past, and based on building permits they had received, that they received at a time when what they were proposing was perfectly logical and ac- ceptable to the City and they proceeded in good faith with the full intent that these be condo- miniums from 'the very beginning. He added that this is not alconversion project, but are new units designed from the very beginning to be con- dominiums with:separ.ate utilities throughout and all the other requirements of the City at the tim that they obtained building.perm14 . He asked that the Planning Commission consider these thing And not make the applicant pay, that their projec was,acceptable at the time that they obtained their building permits and began their construc- tion, and the Condominium Conversion Ordinance itself, with which they comply, was adopted after they obtained their building permits and began construction. Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that ther are a lot of things done legally that are accept- able and that he could not accept an application that provides only one parking space for a dwell- ing unit. Commissioner Balalis stated his disagreement .with. Commissioner Beek, expressing his feeling that it is not possible to expect any applicant to pro- vide more than the code requires. : Commissioner., Allen stated her agreement with Com- missioner Beek's concern regarding';the parking. She expressed her concern regarding, the wording of Condition No. 6, to which Mr. Hewicker replied that normally the finding.would bethat adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed re- sidential project; inasmuch as it would be diffi- cult to provide additional parking on -site, the -19- W m o 3 (D MINUTES January 10, 1980 of Newport Beach INDEX i tanning Commission; if they feel that the onstree arking is a mitigating feature in this particular ase, could include the finding that onstreet park ng is available and will help to relieve the de- iciency. He added that this type ;of thing is in. he Code relative to the restaurant parking stan -. ards and the Planning Commission can make the findings that under certain circumsitances, althoug here may not be adequate parking on the site, hat the project is in a location where there is ubstantial on- street parking whichmitigates the eficiency. ommissioner Allen expressed her feeling that by inserting such finding, the Planning Commission s in effect.s.aying that there is inadequate park - ng available. gmmissioner Allen inquired whether the City might Bandon the continuation of La Jolla Drive, be- • ause if said continuation is-abandoned, it will Tactically serve as off - street parking, because a Jolla Drive doesn't function as a street, but is an access to the garages of those units. )on Webb, Assistant City.Engineer, replied that ;he City itself would not initiate an abandonment of the street; however, if the applicant requested it, the Public Works Department would not object to the vacation of the street. He expressed his feeling that it.is not practical to connect the 2;pieces of La Jolla Drive together, due to the cliff and other advantages of the City not having this as a public right -of -way, due :to the steep lope. . i feeling missioner Allen expressed her Id solve the parking problem. that this Commissioner McLaughlin expressed her feeling that this would disadvantage the City. Commissioner McLaughlin then suggested deleting the reference to on- street parking :in Finding. No. 6. Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that there is not sufficient parking for this project. -20- COMMISSIONERS 1 MINUTES January 10, 1980 0Ca0 3 ? ' ° � City of Newport Beach ���y�N� Y P ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Webb informed the Planning Commission that it ould take approximately 2 - 3 months for abandon- ent of a street. 0 0 r. Hogan requested that the Planning Commission ct on these applications.and consider the aban- onment as a separate issue, stating that whether. r not it is abandoned will not provide any more arking on La Jolla Drive and does;act as a drive - ay that provides access to the garages for the roject and is for all practical purposes. usable nl y by the.project. He suggeste& that the Plan- ing Commission approve the applications as they ave been proposed and if the City feels that bandoning continuation of La Jolla Drive is a hing that should be done for public good, that he City initiate these procedures, because any elay would be detrimental to the applicant. ommissioner Balalis expressed his feeling that t should not be the City that initiates abandon - ent proceedings, but that the applicant initiate he proceedings and that it is not necessary to old the Use Permit pending this. ommissioner Allen commented that the more indi- iduals.involved, the more complex the application or abandonment becomes, and that she wouldn't ant to condition the project that.the abandonment e approved prior to the issuance of the building ermit; however, condition immediate application or the abandonment. ommissioner Balalis suggested conditioning that he application can be.filed prior!to the recor- ation for the resubdivision. r. Hogan stated that the applicants paid for the nstallation of the street and not the taxpayers nd :that the maintenance of the street is the bur - ,en of the City. ommissioner Balalis suggested asking them as a ommission to apply for the abandonment. ommissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that thi could guarantee nothing. -21- COMMISSIONERS " MINUTES [0g January 10, 1980 � 9 D W � 3 N S 9 g City of Newport Beach I ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 I INDEX n response to a question posed byMr. Hogan, Mr. ebb replied that abandonment proceedings are sually initiated by a letter of request from the oncerned property owners to the City Council. ugh Coffin, City Attorney, stated that more than ikely, if the whole street is vacated, the west - rly half would vest in his clients and the east - rly half would be vested in the uphill owners and onsideration. would have to be made by the City ouncil on whether or not it is appropriate to acate La Jolla Drive. r. Hogan stated the applicants' willingness to ubmit a letter to the City requesting such. ommissio.ners Beek and Cokas expressed their feel - ngs that it would not create additional parking o abandon 'the street. • Commissioner Allen expressed her feeling that though it doesn't create any additional parking than what is already there., it assures that these 3>buildings retain in perpetuity that they have that parking as off- street parkingland that La Jolla Drive is off- street parking and that she would not be happy with approving something that needs on- street parking. Motion x kmendment to the Motion was made that an added con ition be added which states, "That the applicant il.1 apply to the City of Newport Beach for aban- onment of at least the improved portion of the treet adjacent to the three properties." r. Webb replied that there would be an advantage o the City in that they would no longer have to aintain these facilities and that it is not a tandard street width, but only 20' wide with no ul -de -sac at the end in case the public wishes o come in and turn, around and the area beyond is rimarily in a steep enough slope that it makes it xtremely difficult to extend the street. Commissioner McLaughlin accepted Commissioner. Balalis' Amendment to be included as part of her • Motion. -22- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 10, 1980 �0 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion x kmendment to the Motion was made that Finding No. 5.be deleted. ommissioner McLaughlin accepted Commissioner eek's Amendment to be.included as:part of her otion. Ayes x x. K x x otion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent r. Hewicker explained that the required condition that the applicant apply for abandonment should also be a required condition for Resubdivision Nos. 646, 647 and 648. Motion Ayes Absent x x x x x xthe Motion was made that the Planning Commission make findings as indicated in Exhibit "'A" of the . Staff Report and approve Resubdivision Nos. 646, 647 and 648, subject to the revised conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report. Request to consider an amendment to Section 0.87.140 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to the definition of the term "Dwell- ing.Unit ", and the acceptance of an Environmental Item #10 AMENDMENT NO. 538 ocument. APPROVED INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach Motion x otion was made that this item be tabled until suc Ayes x x xx x x ime as there is additional relevant material re- Absent jardi.ng this item. et for public hearing proposed amendments to the Item #11 and Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open pace, and Circulation Elements of.the General GENERAL lan. P AN-- AIREADM E NT INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach !— SET FOR times Hewicker, Planning Director, ;informed the BLIC • Manning Commission that they were :requested by HEARING 'he City Council to proceed with the General Plan ON B- mendment 80 -1 as quickly as possible and to cam- RUARY 7, 1980 -23- C MISSIONERSI MINUTES January 10,1980 �0 w n City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ommissioner Beek inquired regarding Koll Center, o which Hugh Coffin, City Attorney, commented hat under the City Council policy on General lan Amendments, the Planning Commission should etermine after examination whether or not the roject is worthy of consideration] and that it ould be appropriate for the Planning Commission o make a determination that this particular re- uest is not at this time worthy of consideration, ue to the fact of pending litigation against the ity regarding the effect of General Plan Amendmen 9 -1 to the Koll Center Hotel. Son x otion Was made that Koll Center not be included Ayes x x x x x onsideration of General Plan Amendment 80 -1 at Absent * his time, due to the fact that thi..s particular -24- plete their deliberations in such a fashion that the City Council can start their public hearings on the amendment no later than March 10, 1980. RESOLU- �N NO. 1049 He also suggested regarding the Circulation Ele- ment of General Plan Amendment 79- 2'.that this not be included as a part of General`P1'an Amendment 80 -1 because the Environmental Documentation for that project will not be available for staff re- view until the early to middle part of February and it would not be able to go forward to the City Council in the same timely ,fashion as some of the other General Plan Amendments.' He explained that the City Council policy provides that the City initiate the General Plan Amendment and that the Planning.Commission at the time; of setting the hearing can discuss the merits'of setting a eneral Plan Amendment on.a particular proposal, but that in the event the Planning Commission finds that there is no merit in a particular item, they may elect to recommend to the City • Council that it not be included in the Amendment. He explained further that in such case, the indi- vidual has the opportunity to address the City Council the City Council can either sustain .and the Planning Commission or direct that the Plan- ing Commission initiate the hearing on that par- ticular request. Motion x M otion was made that the Circulation Element not Ayes x x x x x Ybe included in consideration of General Plan Absent Amendment 80 -1 at this time, upon which a Straw ote was taken. ommissioner Beek inquired regarding Koll Center, o which Hugh Coffin, City Attorney, commented hat under the City Council policy on General lan Amendments, the Planning Commission should etermine after examination whether or not the roject is worthy of consideration] and that it ould be appropriate for the Planning Commission o make a determination that this particular re- uest is not at this time worthy of consideration, ue to the fact of pending litigation against the ity regarding the effect of General Plan Amendmen 9 -1 to the Koll Center Hotel. Son x otion Was made that Koll Center not be included Ayes x x x x x onsideration of General Plan Amendment 80 -1 at Absent * his time, due to the fact that thi..s particular -24- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 10; 1980 -ism w 8. 0 ON 1111 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I INDEX request on Koll Center is not worthy of considera- tion, due to the fact that litigation is presently pending, upon which a Straw Vot -e was taken. Motion x Motion was made that North Ford not be included in consideration of General Plan Amendment 80 -1 at this time, as the Irvine Company is asking the Planning Commission to over'rulei the City Council, which he felt was not an appropriate thing for the Planning Commissi - -on to consider. Commissioner Allen stated her understanding that there is still litigation pending on North Ford, to which Mr. Coffin.reported that the litigation regarding North Ford is still pending and has not been dismissed., as the Irvine Company had some concern regarding the specific condition attaching that industrial development could not occur unless it was after or at the same time as the residentia development and application is to modify that one • particular condition. He added, however, that Irvine litigation does not involve General Plan Amendment 79 -1. he Public Hearing was opened regarding this item nd David Dmohowski, Irvine Company, stated that hey are perfectly willing to commit to a resi- ential use of the parcel, consistent with the ity Council's action, but that they are r.equest - ng the City to consider perhaps an alternative eans of insuring that this parcel becomes resi- ential in terms of perhaps a legal instrument gainst the property such as a C.C.. &_R. deed estriction, an easement of some sort, or a de- elopment agreement rather than the actual fact . f residential construction prior to or concurrent ith industrial. Commissioner Balalis posed a question, to which Mir. Coffin replied that this particular condition i:s now in the General Plan and cannot be amended until the Planning Commission has made its recom- mendation on whether or not it is a good idea to amend that condition. !mss lxl lxl Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which s x x x MOTION FAILED. Absent -25- MINUTES January 10, 1980 R 0, V I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL III III I 117DEX Commissioner McLaughlin stated her understanding that the reason the City Council put this tie in on this project was to insure the fact that there would be residential development and that there is an instrument that is possible to tie this in within a reasonable time frame and:for that rea- son she would vote to hear the project. Motion x Motion was made that Items c, d, e, .g (bike trails and h (freeway reservation east) be set for public hearing. Motion x Amendment to the Mot.ion was made that Items a,.c, d, e, g and h be set for public hearing. Motion x Amendment to the Amendment was made that Item a be excluded from consideration. Commissioner Allen commented regarding Item c, stating that she was not comfortabl',e setting • for public hearing an item on which she considered to be not enough information to warrant such. 'h. Dmohowski commented that the Irvine Company ` owns the land and that the applicant is a lessee to the Irvine Company, which is requesting a change on approximately 10,000 sq. ft. on an adja- cent parcel to allow an expansion of an existing service station use and is not related to the en- ire parcel. Mr. Hewicker informed the Planning'Commission that the area is two tenths of an acre. Ayes x x3ltraw Vote was then taken an the Arendment to the Noes x K x x endment, which MOTION FAILED. Absent Ayes x x x 3itraw Vote: was .then taken on the Amendment to the Noes x x otion, w ich MOTION FAILED. Absent Ayes x x traw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which Noes x Y x IWWIFAKTILED. Absent ommissioner Balalis commented that the only argu- ent is whether or not North Ford should be con - idered and stated his understanding that they are of being asked to change the decijion of the City ouncil as it pertains to the residential and in- ustrial amounts built or to change the timing. -26- COMMISSIONERS w S(o MINUTES January 10, 1980 of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX 0 Motion Ayes Absent Motion 0 r. Hewicker commented that the recommendation of he City. Council in approving General Plan Amend -. ent 79 -1 was that the residential would either e built prior to or concurrent with the industria ortion and at this time the only necessary deci- ion for the Planning Commission is:whether or not o set this question for a public hearing and in o way obligates the Planning Commi':ssion to either pprove or disapprove the request at a later date. ommissioner. Balalis stated hey would be hearing North ussion on such to only the haling of the.two items to ustrial. his understanding that Ford an!d limiting dis- item pertaining to the the commercial and in- ommissioner Allen stated her understanding that, as not a request by the City Council but by the rvine Company to rescind a conditilon on the de- elopment of the North Ford P -C adopted by the ity Council as part of General Plan Amendment 9 -1, which: solution is now being worked out be- ween the City Council and the Irvine Company and he expressed her concern relative to pre - empting he City Council. Mr. Dmohowski stated that the reason they are re- questing it at this time is because the negotia- tions are ongoing.and should the City Council decide to reconsider, then the current General Plan conditions may or may not be a stumbling- block to implementing a solution and they are asking that the Planning Commission keep the option open and not asking that they prejudge the request at this time. ot.ion was made to reconsider the previous Motion. otion was made to adopt Resolution No. 3049 and et for public hearing at the regular Planning ommission meeting on February 7, 1980 Items , d, e, g and h with the understanding that the taff will report to City Council the Planning ommission's concerns and votes on Item a and sk whether the.City Council wishes to direct he Planning Commission to set said item for ublic hearing. -27- = January 10, 1980 X � D Citv of Newport Beach :3 8� X W= 93 ROLL CALL MINUTES Commissioner Allen inquired whether it is the con - sensus of the Planning Commission that.their con tern regarding this item is that it is currently being worked out.by the City Council and Mr. Hewicker replied that there are ongoing negotia- tions between the applicant and the City Council and the Planning Commission did not desire to pre- empt them. Mir. Balalis stated his understanding that this was the consensus of 3 of the members of the Planning Commission, but that the other 3 wanted to set it for public hearing while the negotia- tions were taking place, so that the item would be before the Planning Commission when the negotia- tions were concluded and the concern was whether to set it for public hearing at this time or at the next meeting. Avas X X .x x Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. ent * * * * Mr. Hogan commented regarding the tabling of Amendment No. 538, stating his interest in said item as the portion that would remove the minimum of 600 sq. ft. required for a dwelling unit. He explained that.the size of the senior citizen's housing project for the Lutheran Church has to be reconsidered because of HUD requirements and that they would like to see this require - ment removed. Commissioner Beek stated his agreement. Motion Motion was made to reconsider the previous Motion relative to Amendment No. 538. 1. Commissioner Allen stated that she would abstain, as she would not vote on an item on which she had not. received a staff report. Ayes x x x x Motion was then voted on, which.MOTION CARRIED.' Noes x A stain x Motion was made that the Planning Commission re ent vise Section 20.87.140 of the Zoning Code to eli- o ion x minate the portion which reads, there must be a minimum of 600 sq. ft. . FM COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 10, 1980 i 0 m w Ll n w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Thomas stated his disagreement with encouraging such small units. Ayes Y x x N Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Noes x Abstain x Absent Motion Motion was made to excuse Commissioner Cokas from Ayes x x x x xx the regular Planning Commission meetings of Absent January 24, 1980 and February 7, 1980. * * * There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ebra Allen, ecretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -29- i i