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