HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/1981REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Place: City Council Chambers
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Date: January 22, 1981
GtV of
WWI
X YX X Commissioner Cokas was absent. Commissioner
McLaughlin was present for the meeting at 9:55
p.m.
EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT:
James D. Hewicker, Planning Director
Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney
* * *
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
MINUTES
William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato
Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator
Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer
Pamela Woods, Secretary
* * *
* * *
Staff advised that the applicant for Item No. 3,
Modification No. 2633, has requested that this
item be continued to the meeting of April 9, 1981
Staff also advised that the applicant for Item
No. 9, Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan Amend-
ment No. 2, has requested that this item be con-
tinued to the meeting of February 5, 1981.
Motion y Motion was made to continue Modification No. 2633
All Ayes X y X X y to the meeting of April 9, 1981, and to continue
Absent * Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan Amendment No.
2 to the meeting of February 5, 1981, which
• MOTION CARRIED.
* * *
INDEX
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Motion
x
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the
All Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December
Absent
*
18, 1980 as written, which MOTION CARRIED.
Motion
x
Motion was made to approve the minutes of the
All Ayes
X
X
X
X
Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 8,
Absent
*
T
1981 as written, which MOTION CARRIED.
* * *
Staff advised that the applicant for Item No. 3,
Modification No. 2633, has requested that this
item be continued to the meeting of April 9, 1981
Staff also advised that the applicant for Item
No. 9, Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan Amend-
ment No. 2, has requested that this item be con-
tinued to the meeting of February 5, 1981.
Motion y Motion was made to continue Modification No. 2633
All Ayes X y X X y to the meeting of April 9, 1981, and to continue
Absent * Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan Amendment No.
2 to the meeting of February 5, 1981, which
• MOTION CARRIED.
* * *
INDEX
January 22, 1981
M
Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
The public hearing opened in connection with this
item and Mr. Bill'Goltermann, representing The
Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission.
Mr. Goltermann stated that no use is being re-
quested at this time for the parcels. He stated
that the environmental documentation and the
Planned Community Development Plan for the entire
site will be brought back to the Commission in
the future. He stated that the conditions placed
on the tentative parcel map.will only apply to
the land directly adjacent to Parcel 1 and Parcel
A.
Mr. Goltermann stated that they are also in agree -
ment with the revision to Condition No. 16, but
requested that the last sentence of Condition No.
16 be revised to read, "any additional parking"
rather than, "the additional parking ". Staff
stated that they had no objections to this re-
wording.
0 11111111 -2
Request to create one parcel of land for sale
Item #1
purposes, one parcel designated as "not a
building site ", and one residual parcel to be
held for future development, and the acceptance
of an Environmental Document.
RESUB-
DIVISION
N0. 674
LOCATION: A portion of Lot 2 of Tract No.
1125, located at 200 Dover Drive
on the easterly side of Dover
Drive between Westcliff :Drive and
Cliff Drive on the Castaways
APPROVED
CONDI-
TIONALLY
property.
ZONE: P -C
APPLICANT: The Irvine Company
OWNER: Same as applicant
ENGINEER: Robert.Bein, William Frost &
Associates, Newport Beach
Planning Director Hewicker stated that Condition
of Approval No. 1'6.has been revised, as the re-
sult of a meeting between the staff and The
Irvine Company.
The public hearing opened in connection with this
item and Mr. Bill'Goltermann, representing The
Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission.
Mr. Goltermann stated that no use is being re-
quested at this time for the parcels. He stated
that the environmental documentation and the
Planned Community Development Plan for the entire
site will be brought back to the Commission in
the future. He stated that the conditions placed
on the tentative parcel map.will only apply to
the land directly adjacent to Parcel 1 and Parcel
A.
Mr. Goltermann stated that they are also in agree -
ment with the revision to Condition No. 16, but
requested that the last sentence of Condition No.
16 be revised to read, "any additional parking"
rather than, "the additional parking ". Staff
stated that they had no objections to this re-
wording.
0 11111111 -2
January 22, 1981 MINUTES
s fir City of Newport Beach
INDEX
Commissioner Thomas asked staff why this resub-
division request was being handled separately
from the remainder of the development procedures
for the Castaways site. Planning Director HewickE
stated that this was a concern of the staff when
this request was originally submitted. He stated
that the Saint Andrew's Presbyterian Church has
entered into an agreement with The Irvine Company
to purchase a portion of the property in question.
He stated that in order for the church to relate
to the commercial and residential developments of
the entire site, conditions havetbeen placed on
the parcel map to ensure that there will be no
development until such time as there is an EIR
and a Planned Community Development Plan.
Commissioner Thomas stated that 17.46 acres seeme
-- - -_ --. _ __ extremely large for a church side. - -*t ..._Go- lt�rman
stated that the parcel in question, approximates
only 10 buildable acres because it includes many
sloping areas. Commissioner Thomas asked if this
parcel would include any type of housing. Mr.
• Goltermann stated that the entire parcel would be
utilized as a church facility with no housing.
Commissioner Balalis stated that the present Sain
Andrew's Presbyterian Church has approximately
5,000 members.and is experiencing l- tremendous
parking problem at its present site.
Planning Director Hewicker stated that 10 usable
acres is not considered to be unusual fora
large' church facility. He stated that this will
allow the Church to purchase the site now, as
opposed to purchasing the site at a later date.
He addedethat the Commission will have the oppor-
tunity to review the use permit for the Church..
Commissioner Balalis asked staff if Condition No.
1 was an enforceable condition. Condition No. 1.
being that no development shall occur nor any
on -site or off -site improvements .be made until
such time as an EIR has been certified and a P -C
Development Plan has been approved for the_56.98
acre site. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney,
stated that this condition is enforceable and is
• 11111111 -3-
COMMISSIONERS January 22, 1981 . MINUTES
s
w
Of
also a mitigation measure that is incorporated
into the project by virtue of the Negative De-
claration.
Mr. Frerichs, Operations Manager for the Newport
Harbor Lutheran Church, appeared before the Com-
mission. Mr. Frerichs referred.to the widening
of Dower Drive.and asked if The Irvine Company
or the City of Newport Beach will pay for these
improvements. - Planning Director Hewicker stated
that The Irvine Company will have to dedicate to
the City the required portions of Parcel 1 and
the residual parcel. He stated that it would be
the responsibility of the City to enter into an
agreement with the Lutheran_Church for the land
adjacent.to the Church, which is not a part of
the parcel map. Mr. Webb concurred and stated
that the right -of -way item would be addressed in
detail in the environmental document.
Motion X Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No.
674 with the findings and conditions of Exhibit
• "A" of the staff report with the revised wording
for Condition No. 16 as agreed upon by the appli-
cant and the staff, including changirng the word
"the" to "any ".
Amendment X Amendment to the motion was made to include that.
Parcel 1 is not a residential parcel.
Commissioner Thomas stated that the applicant had
stated that Parcel l will not include residential
uses. Commis.sioner Balalis asked staff if an
amendment of this nature could be included in the
motion for approval of the resubdivision.
0
Mr. Fred Talarico., Environmental.Coordinator,
stated that the project to be evaluated in the
EIR will be for open space, residential, church
and commercial uses for the entire site He
stated that the land uses will be determined
during the Planned Community District phase..
Planning Director Hewicker added that in the,
event the sale of the parcel to the Church should
not occur, the applicant will want to develop the
parcel for another use under the General Plan,
which is residential.
-4-
INDEX
January 22, 1981_ MINUTES
9
0x
City of Newport Beach
INDEX
Mr. Burnham stated that the General Plan desig
nates the property as residential. He stated
that the amendment to the motion for non- residen-
tial would be inconsistent with the General Plan
and therefore would not be permissible to be,in-
corporated into the motion.
Commissioner Balalis suggested. that perhaps a
finding should be added that the property is in-
tended on being used for other than residential
purposes.
Commissioner Allen stated that the General Plan
designates :this property as low density residential.
She stated.that the Church use may, or may not be
a more intense use than that. She stated that
she would prefer to vote on the motion as originally
stated.
Amendment Commissioner Thomas withdrew his amendment to the
withdrawn X motion.
0 Motion for approval of Resubdivision No. 674 with
Ayes Absent X * X * X X the following findings and conditions was now
voted on, which MOTION CARRIED:
Environmental Documen
Findings•
1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaratio
have been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, and
that their contents have been considered in
the decisions on this project.
2. That based on the information contained in
the Negative Declaration, the project incor-
porates sufficient mitigation measures to
reduce potentially- significant environmental
effects, and that the project will not result
in significant environmental impacts.
Resubdivision No. 674
Findings:
• 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title
19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all
-5-
CL 0
January 22, 1981
MINUTES
� � r
INDEX
applicable general
Planning Commission
of subdivision.
or specific plans and the
is satisfie.d with the pla
2. That the proposed res:ubdivision presents no
problems from a planning standpoint.
Conditions:
1. That no development shall occur nor any on-
site or off -site improvements be made until
such time as an Environmental Impact Report
has been certified and a P -C Development Plan
has been approved for the 56.98 acre site.
2. That a parcel map be filed.
3. That.all improvements be constructed as re-
quired -by ordinances and the Public Works
Department.
4. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying
• surety be provided if it is desired to record
the parcel map prior to completion of the
public improvements.
5. That additional right -of -way be dedicated for
street and highway pruposes along.Dover Drive
so that a minimum of 127 feet of right -of -way
will be available for street and highway
purposes; and that Dover Drive be widened wit
full improvements, including, but not limited
to, reconstructing and relandscaping median,
constructing curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement
widening, grading. , street lighting, storm
drains., signal modifications, and traffic
signal. construction at Cliff Drive.
6. That all vehicular access rights to Dover
Drive be .released and relinquished to the
City, except at existing street intersections
and at the north end of Parcel A opposite
Cliff Drive.
7. That access to Parcel l be provided from
16th Street by way of an_ easement over the
residual parcel for ingress, egress, and
• public utility purposes.
-6-
COMMISSIONERS January 22, 19 81 MINUTES
3
_J
H City of Newport Beach
L CALL INDEX
E
13. That a 12 -foot wide pedestrian walkway/
bikeway and easement be provided from 16th
Street easterly to the bluff top, -then
southerly along the bluff top to a view
point at the southerly end of Parcel 1; and
that a 6- foot -wide pedestrian trail be con -
structed from the view point to Dover Drive
and that an easement for this trail be
-7
8. That fire vehicle access shall be approved
by the Fire Department; and that the loca-
tions of the fire hydrants be reviewed and
approved by the Fire Department and the
Public Works Department..
9. That the final design of the on -site pede-
strian circulation system be reviewed and
approved.by the Public Works Department
and the Planning Department.
10. That a hydrology >and hydraulic study be
prepared and approved by the Public Works
Department along with a master plan of water
sewer a.nd storm drain facilities. Any new
facilities or modifications or extensions
to the existing storm drain, water and.sewer
systems .shown to be required by the study
shall be the responsibility of the developer
Asphalt or concrete access roads shall be
provided to all public utility vaults, man-
holes and junction structures.
•
11. That easements.dedica.ted to the City be a
minimum of 10 feet in width, with wider
easements provided where required by the
Public Works Department.
12. That water service be provided to. Parcel
No. l by extendin.g the existing 12" water
main in 16th Street. The water main shall
be extended easterly and then southerly thru
the residual parcel, Parcel No.1 and.Parcel
No. A, and connect to the 24" water main in
Dover Drive at.the southerly end of Parcel
No. A. The design shall be approved by the
Public Works Department and appropriate ease
ments shall be provided.
E
13. That a 12 -foot wide pedestrian walkway/
bikeway and easement be provided from 16th
Street easterly to the bluff top, -then
southerly along the bluff top to a view
point at the southerly end of Parcel 1; and
that a 6- foot -wide pedestrian trail be con -
structed from the view point to Dover Drive
and that an easement for this trail be
-7
January 22, 1981
y City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
dedicated, the location and design of the
walkway, bikeway and trail to be approved
by the Public Works and Planning Departments
14. That a p.reliminary design for the access
road (Parcel A) be provided to the Public
Works Department before recordation of the
parcel.map to insure that there is adequate
right -of -way in Parcel for -the turning move-
ments from Dover Drive.
15. That a traffic study be performed to deter -
mine if dual left- turn lanes will be require
to serve the site from Dover Drive and that
if two lanes are warranted, added right-of-
way be dedicated.
16. That the need for the provision of additiona
parking on Parcel No. l or the Residual
Parcel for the church located on the south-
east corner of 16th Street and Dover Drive
to replace parking lost from the Dover Drive
• widening be evaluated. That the location an
design of any additional parking shall be
reviewed and approved by the public Works
Department and Planning Department.
17. That Parcel No. A shall be designated as
"not a building site" on the recorded map.
Request to consider Amendment No. 1 to the
Traffic'Phasing_Plan for the remaining develop-
ment of Office Site C of the Koll Center Planned
Community, and the acceptance of an Environmental
Document.
LOCATION: Office Site C of the Planning
Community of Koll- Center Newport,
located easterly of MacArthur Blvd.
between Campus Drive and Birch
Street...
ZONE: P -C
APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach
• OWNER: Same as applicant
INDEX
Item #2
TRAFFIC.
PHASING
PLAN
January 22, 1981 MINUTES
d
$O �D
N City of Newport Beach
INDEX
Chairman Haidinger referred to Page 3 of the
staff report and asked staff for clarification
of Condition No. 6 of the Phasing Plan. Mr.
Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that widths
for street right -of -ways were not specified
in the Corporate Plaza development, but that
adequate room for traffic with turning lanes is
provided. He stated that the 48 feet of width
that is requested, is the Master Plan width of
paving which will provide for one lane of traffic
in each direction, a two =way left turning lane,
and 6 feet of shoulder area on either side. He
stated that the pavement width will be increased
by approximately 10 or 11 feet.
Commissioner Allen referred to the agenda and
stated that traffic distributions have been pre-
oared for this item and another item, which is in
the ,same general area.. She asked the traffic
consultant to explain why the two traffic distri-
butions for the same area contain such different
• results.
The public hearing opened in connection with this
item and Mr. Wes Pringle, -the Traffic Consultant,
appeared before the Commission. Mr. Pringle- -
stated that the traffic distributions came from
two different sources and were.never compared
with each other. He stated that the distribution
are judgemental, which.is the problem with traffi
forecasting. Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Pringl
which report is more accurate. Mr. Pringle state
that one report is as accurate as the other.
Mr. Ron Hendrickson, representing The Irvine
Company, appeared before the.Commission. In re-
sponse to Commissioner Allen's.question, Mr.
Hendrickson stated tha.t the previous traffic
study filed with the request last July, had not
been updated to reflect .the fact that the.San
Miguel extension provides relief to Coast High-
way and MacArthur Boulevard. He stated that this
results in an ICU of .-8671 at MacArthur Boulevard
and lEast Coast; Ni
;gilway in 1983.
• IIIIIIII -9
COMMISSIONERS January 22, 19 81 MINUTES
Fir ( W City of Newport Beach
IMWLICALL INDEX
Mr. Hendrickson stated that they are willing to
accept Condition No. 6, and to provide $48,075.00
to the transportation fund, and $3,415.00 to be
used for the.construction of the wall on Jamboree
Road. He referred to Condition No. 6 and request
that the square footage be changed to 232,830 sq.
ft., rather than 107,460 sq. ft. He stated that
the 232,830 sq-...ft. is the total amount of devel-
opment which has been previously approved. Mr.
Webb referred to Page 9 of the addendum to the
EIR and stated that he.would have no objection *
to the change in square footage. Commissioner
Allen stated that this would allow The Irvine
Company to develop the already approved 232,830
sq; ft.., but that the road improvements be com-
pleted before the additional development is
commenced.
Commissioner Beek stated that this project i.s .
granting an additional 125,000 sq. ft. on top of
the already app.roved 232,830 sq: ft.. He referred
to the Statement of Facts and the Statement of
• Overridi.ng Considerations as found in the staff
report. He then questioned as to whether this
project will have a beneficial aesthetic effect
and be an asset to the community as discussed in
Item No. l of the Statement of Overriding Con-
siderations.
Commissioner Beek then referred to. Item No. 5
of the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
He stated that-the traffic report indicates that
a large number of the intersections will be
functioning at unsatisfactory levels. He stated
that this.project will put a significantly in-
creased amount of traffic through each of these
intersections, which is inconsistent with the
goals, policies and objectives of the community
as found in the:General.Plan and Zoning Regula-
tions. Commissioner Beek stated that he found
the Statement of Overriding Considerations to be
inaccurate, inadequate and unacceptable.
Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Burnham if the state
ments that the project has a beneficial aesthetic
effect; and that the.project is consistent with
the goals, policies and objectives of the commun-
ity as expressed in the General Plan and Zoning
-10-
COMMISSIONERS1 January 22, 1981
F City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
Regulations, must be included in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations. Mr. Burnham stated
that the project can be approved without making
those statements.
Mr..Burnham referred to Item No. 2 of the State-
ment of Overriding Considerations and stated
that this statement would most likely override
the environmental impacts created by this pro -
ject. Chairman Haidinger stated that this item
would clearly be to the City's benefit. Com-
missioner Allen suggested that only Item No. 2.
be made as the Statement of Overriding Consider-
ations.
Commissioner Allen stated that this project*sug-
gestssthat ap.proximately 45 parking spaces will
be removed along East Coast Highway in Corona
del Mar. Mr. Hendrickson stated that this was
done by previous actions and not as a part of the
project being requested this evening. Commission
Alden concurred with Mr. He- ndrickson but stated
• that the.addition of a third westbound lane is a
recommended project related improvement which
will remove parking on East Coast Highway from
Avocado Avenue to Dahlia Avenue. Commissioner
Allen stated that the problem is with peak hours
and suggested that a reasonable compromise would
be that the parking be removed only from 5:00 p.m
to 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Webb stated that a peak hour prohibition may
be appropriate in this instance. He stated that
the condition on the Koll Hotel is worded in such
a manner that it is subject to the approval of
the Traffic Engineer also. He stated that the
removal of the parking from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30
p.m. may be too short of a time to make an
improvement . in the traffic. He suggested that
the developer make the improvements that woul.d
be necessary to allow.for the creation of the
lane. At such time that the intersection exceeds
the .9 criteria, the peak hour prohibition could
then be implemented.
Commissioner Allen stated that in the event the
parking strip were to be removed, other than the
• 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. parking prohibition, she
-11-
January 22, 1981 MINUTES
g. In w il City of Newport Beach
requested that a public hearing be held to deter-
mine same. Mr. Webb stated that public hearings
are normally held for controversial parking areas
before the City Council.
In response to a question by Commissioner Balalis
Mr. Pringle stated that with the San Miguel Drive
improvement and the third lane, the ICU drops to
.8671.. Mr: Pringle stated that with the San
Miguel Drive impro.vement and without the third
lane, the ICU increases to .9497.
Commissioner B:alalis suggested that the condition
be revised to reflect that The Irvine Company be
required to place "X" number of dollars into a
Fund that would be required to perform this
condition, but that the applicant not be required
to construct same. Mr. Hendrickson reiterated
that the problem is being created by eastbound
traffic.on East Coast Highway, which is not
being generated by this project.
• Commissioner Thomas stated that while this projec
may not have a direct impact on the intersection,
it will have an indirect impact, as it will b.e
contributing in overloading the grid.
U
Chairman Haidinger referred to Exhibi -t "A" of
the January 8, 1981 staff report, Condition No.
4 of the °Phasing. Plan, and suggested wording be
added to the effect that, "unless subsequent
project approval of Planning Commission action
require modification thereto. Chairman Haidinge
asked staff for their comments on the revised
wording.
Mr. Talarico suggested that Condition No. 4 be
revi.sed to add the words, "and the improvements
to. the intersection of East Coast Highway and
MacArthur Boulevard shall be subject to the
approval,of the Planning Commission."
Mr. Dave Dmoho.wski, representing The Irvine
Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr.
Dmohowski suggested that the Commission make a
separate direction to staff that prior to any
implementation of these conditions, that the
-12-
INDEX
n
January 22, 1981
MINUTES
INDEX
Planning Commission and City Council be allowed
to review same, rather than including the condi-
tion as part of this project.
Chairman Haidinger stated that he was more con-
cerned-with the intersections of Bristol. St.North
and Campus Dr.i..ve and Bristol St.North and Birch St-.,
than that of East Coast Highway and MacArthur Blvd.
He also stated that the parking problem in
Corona del Mar could be handled later at a public
hearing.
Motion X Motion was made to approve the project as pro -
posed.by the staff with all of the changes as pro
posed in. the current staff report with the revision to Con-
dition No. 6 as stated, and the findings and conditions of
Exhibit "A" in the staff report of January 8, 1981.
Commissioner Thomas made reference to the Corona
del Mar Freeway and stated that perhaps if:the
State will not pay for part of it, the City
• should pay for part of the freeway out of the
thousands of square feet of development that is
being approved.
Chairman Haidinger asked Mr. Webb to explain what
will be happening.at the intersections of Bristol
St. North and Campus Drive and Bristol St. North and
Birch St. Mr.'Webb stated that the extension to
Jamboree Road from the Corona del Mar Freeway is
the only way to reduce the congestion levels to
an acceptable point.
Commissioner Thomas stated that the cost for the
freeway should be amortized by the.square footage
being proposed by these projects. He stated that
the developments getting the benefits, should
have to .pay.
Planning Director Hewicker stated that there
comes a point where the Commission must consider
what is being proposed in terms of square footage
and the costs for such traffic improvements. Mr.
Burnham stated that the contribution from an
applicant must be reasonably related to the im-
pact created by the project.
• IIIILIII .13_
IMD�IVIVtKS January 22, 1981 MINUTES
�m
CL
City of Newport Beach
-
RWLCALLI III Jill I INDEX
Commissioner Allen stated that the project could
be phased with the completion of the Corona del'
Mar,Freeway. Commissioner Balalis stated that
this is another alternative.
Amendment X Commissioner Balalis stated that he would support
the motion, but requested that an amendment be
included to indicate that the widening of the
third lane on East Coast Highway not be done; unless
specifically approved by the Commission. He
stated that Mr. Talarico's previous suggestion fo
Condition No.. 4 would - accomplish this concern.
Acceptanc
i 1 X Chairman Haidinger accepted this amendment to
his motion.
Commissioner Allen concurred with the statements
of Commissioner Balalis. She stated that the
decision as to whether to build the development
or not, has already been made. She also stated
that there seems to be a reasonable correlation
between the traffic generated and the improvement
• Commissioner Beek state* d that an ICU of .9,
which is defined as unsatisfactory, is not a
reasonable correlation. Commissioner Allen stated
that-it would not be realistic to phase this.pro-
ject with the Corona del Mar Freeway. She stated
that short of building the Corona del Mar Freeway
there are not many solutions that can make the
traffic situation better.
Chairman Haidinger asked Mr. Webb when it is
anticipated that the Corona del Mar Freeway
would be completed. Mr. Webb stated it was to
have been completed within the next three to
four years., but this was prior to the announce-
ment by Cal -Trans that they are 900 million
dollars short in their 5 -year program. It has
now been postponed until such time as more money
is obtained. He stated that they are continuing
to work on the design of the freeway.
Commissioner Thomas stated that it would not:be
unreasonable to require the developers to pay
per the square footage approved, for.the traffic
improvements. He stated that this would be a
. small price to pay to solve the continuing
traffic problems.
-14-
January 22, 1981 MINUTES
�a
F City of Newport Beach
CALL INDEX
Commissioner Balalis stated that perhaps it
should be recommended to:the City Council that
a group be formed from the cities of Costa Mesa,
Irvine and Newport Beach,.to determine if there
is enough square footage being built to collect
money for the freeway completion. Or, he stated
that perhaps a policy should be developed whereby
the Commission can not, in all good conscience,
approve any more buildings in any area that has
a traffic impact on those two intersections.
Commissioner Beek stated that when the Koll Cente
1. Draft: Addendum to the Certified. Final
Environmental Impact Report - Koll
Center Newport Planned Community
Development - Total Buildout of Irvine
Company Property.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated
• January 8, 1981 with attachments.
-15-
was originally zoned over 10 years ago, it was
actively opposed by The Irvine Company on the
grounds that the street system would not be able
to handle the traffic. He stated that the fact
must be recognized that the City of Newport Beach
has simply outgrown the capacity of its streets
to ha.ndle the traffic. He stated that the most
effective way to motivate developers to improve
the streets, is to make it a condition of the.ir
project that the streets be below an ICU of .9.
A•
x
X
Y
Amended Motion was now voted on to approve the
Noes
X
X
Traffic Phasing Plan as follows, which MOTION
Absent
*
CARRIED:
Environmental Document
FINDINGS:
1. Accept and approve the Environmental Docu-
ment with the following findings:
a. The City of Newport Beach has prepared
a Final EIR Addendum for the proposed
project consisting of the following
documents:
1. Draft: Addendum to the Certified. Final
Environmental Impact Report - Koll
Center Newport Planned Community
Development - Total Buildout of Irvine
Company Property.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated
• January 8, 1981 with attachments.
-15-
COMMISSIONERS1 January 22, 1981 MINUTES
I pr
t
INDEX
3.. Any additional related correspondence
presented to the Planning Commission
subsequent to the preparation of this
report.
4. Planning Commission Supplemental
Staff Report dated January 8, 1981,
with attachments.
5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated
January 22, 1981; with attachments.
b. The Planning Commission of Newport.Beach
accepts and approves the Final EIR Adden-
dum and certifies that the Final EIR
Addendum has been prepared pursuant to,.
and in compliance with, the California
Environmental Quality Act, (hereinafter
referred to as "CEQA") and the State EIR
Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as
"Guidelines ") and fully complies with,
• and satisfies, all of the requirements of
CEQA and Guidelines.
c. The Planning Commission of Newport Beach
certifi'es.that it has reviewed and con -
sidered the information contained in the
Final EIR Addendum in conjunction with
the various decisions and approvals asso-
ciated with this project..
Statement of Facts
FINDING:
1. The Planning Commission of Newport Beach
approves and thereby makes the Findings,
contained in the Statement of Facts, with
respect to significant impacts identified in
the Final EIR Addendum.
Statement of "Overri'di.ng Considerations
FINDING:
1. The Planning Commission of Newport Beach
• approves and thereby finds that the facts
-16-
COMMISSIONERS January 22, 19 81 MINUTES
CL
City of Newport Beach
L CALL I I I I 1 1 1 INDEX
set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations are true and are supported
by substantial evidence in the record, in=
cl.uding the Final'EIR Addendum and including
Condition No. 6 of the Phasing Plan.
Phasing Plan
FINDINGS:
The Planning Commission of Newport Beach finds:
1. That environmental documentation on this
proposed project has been prepared in com-
pl,ia;nce with the California Environmental
Quality Act and City Policy K -3 and that
its contents have been considered in deci-
sions on this project.
2. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with
the Newport Beach General Plan and the
Planned Community Development Plan for
Koll Center Newport.
3. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting
information submitted therewith, there is a
reasonable correlation between projected
traffic at time of completion and the capacit
of affected intersections.
4. That the applicant has taken into consider-
ation in the preparation of his plan charac-
terist.cs in the design of his development
which either reduce traffic generation or
guide traffic onto less impacted arterials .
or through intersections in the least con-
gested direction.
5. The Planning Commission of Newport Beach
finds that, although the Final EIR Addendum
identifies certain unavoidable significant
environmental effects that will result if
the project is approved, all, significant
-17-
COMMISSIONERS January 22, 1981 MINUTES
0ma �ppD
F N City of Newport Beach
L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX
environmental effects that can feasibly be
mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or
reduced to an acceptable level, and that the
remaining unavoidable significant effects,
when balanced against the facts set forth
in said Statement of Overriding Consideration
giving greater weight to the unavoidable en-
vironmental effects, are acceptable.
6. The Planning Commission.of Newport Beach
approves the Amendment to the .Phasing Plan
for Office Site C of the lfoll Center Newport
Planning Community, subject to the Conditions
indicated below:
CONDITIONS.:
1. That all the Conditions of- Approval of the
original Phasing Plan be met.
2. That an additional sum of $48,075. (for a
• total of $138,075.) be provided for circula-
tion and traffic improvements to intersection
as specified on Page 5, Table 3, of the
Traffic Report dated October 17, 1980, as
shown on the 'City's Master Plan of Circulatio
consistent with the General Plan, with priori
given.to improvements within the vicinity of
the project, if feasible.
3. That prior to the issuance of any.building
permits for the proposed project, the appli-
cant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction.
of the Planning Department that aviation
easements granted to Orange County for the
subject area have not been exceeded.
4. That prior to.the occupancy of any building
on the site beyond the existing development
of :107,460 sq. ft. of new construction, the
Circulation Systems Improvements contained
in the Traffic Report; dated October 17, 1980
Table 4,.Page 8, shall have been constructed
(unless subsequent project approval require
modification thereto):. The Circulation
System Improvements shall be subject to the
• approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the
improvements to the intersection of Coast Hig
way and MacArthur Boulevard shall be subject
to the approval of the Planning Commission.
-18-
COMMISSIONERS January 22, 1981 MINUTES
a
L> City of Newport Beach
CALL INDEX
That prior to the issuance of any building
permit authorized by approval of this Phasing
Plan, the applicant shall deposit with the
City Finance Director, a sum proportional
to the percentage of future additional traf-
fic related to the project in the subject
area, but not to exceed an additional $3,415.
(for a total of $14,415.) to be used for the
construction of a wall on the westerly side
of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive and
Ford Road.
6. That prior to the occupancy of any.building
on the site beyond the existing development
and 232,830 sq. ft. of new construction,
San Miguel Drive shall be completed as ap-
proved and Avocado Avenue from East Coast
Highway to San Miguel Drive shall have been
constructed for two -way traffic with a mini-
mum 48 feet of width and asphalt curb, in-
cluding necessary width for turning lanes
• and pockets in a manner acceptable to the
Public Works Department (unless subsequent
project approval requires modification there-
to). The Circulation System Improvement
shall be subject to the approval of the City
Traffic Engineer.
At 9:30 p.m., Chairman Haidinger informed the
audience that the Commission will not be hearing
Item Nos. l3through 18 on this evening's agenda
He stated that these items will automatically
be continued to the Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of February 5, 1981
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:30 p.m.
and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
• IIIIIIII -19-
�m
January 22, 1981
M]
Beach
MINUTES
ILL CALL
to permit the construction
Jill
Item #4
cashier's
booth and other alterations
in con -
I
I
INDEX
existing
IT
USE PERMIT
full service
gas station to a self.service
gas
N0.
station
located in the C -1 District.
Request to.permit alterations and additions to
Item #3
LOCATION:
Lots 1 and 2, Block T
of`Tract No.
APPROVED
323', located at 3400
East Coast
CONDI-
an existing single family residence that is non-
conforming in that the existing structure en-
croaches to within l' -6" of the south side
property line and to within 2' -6" of the north
side property line where the Code requires 3'
side yard setbacks. The proposed garage en-
MODIFI-
CATION
NO. 2633
(Revised)`
Avenue in
TIONALLY
Corona del Mar.
.croaches 4' -8" into.the required 5' rear setback
and the second floor addition encroaches 2' -2"
into the required 2' -6" rear setback for second
floor development on the 70 foot deep lot.
Continued
to April
9 1981
LOCATION: Lot 48, Block C of Newport Bay
Tract, located at 322 Alvarado
Place on the easterly side of
Alvarado Place, between East Bay
Avenue and Edgewater Avenue, on
the Balboa Peninsula.
ZONE: R -3
APPLICANT: Archi- Tekton, Inc., Newport Beach
• OWNER: Mr. & Mrs. Richard Smith, Newport
Beach
Staff advised that the applicant has requested
that`this matter be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting on April 9, 1981.
Motion 1II J*jjjj Motion was made to continue Modification No. 2633
All Ayes X X X to April 9, 1981,, which MOTION CARRIED.
Absent
* * *
Request
to permit the construction
of a new
Item #4
cashier's
booth and other alterations
in con -
junction.with
the conversion of an
existing
IT
USE PERMIT
full service
gas station to a self.service
gas
N0.
station
located in the C -1 District.
LOCATION:
Lots 1 and 2, Block T
of`Tract No.
APPROVED
323', located at 3400
East Coast
CONDI-
Highway and Marigold
Avenue in
TIONALLY
Corona del Mar.
ZONE:
APPLICANT:
• 1 1 1 1 I l i kWNER:
C -1
J &.M Oil Company Inc., Unit #2,
Los Angeles
Gary J. Gerber, Los Angeles
-20-
4MISSK)NERS January 22, 1981 MINUTES
w n m
9 w City of Newport Beach
INDEX
The public hearing opened in connection with
this item and Mr. William MacLeod, representing
J & M Oil Company, appeared before the Commission
Mr. MacLeod stated that they are in complete
concurrence with the revised conditions of
approval as outlined in the staff report.
Motion. Motion was made for approval of Use Permit-No.
All Ayes X X X X 1970 subject to the findings and conditions as
Absent * follows, which MOTION CARRIED:
FINDINGS:
5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1970 will not,
under the circumstances of this case be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort and general welfare of person
residing or working in the neighborhood or be
detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood or the
general welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That de.v.elopment shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan,
floor plans and elevations, except as noted
below.
2. That. there shall be a minimum of two off -
street parking spaces provided on =site for
employee parking.
-21-
1. That the proposed development is consistent
with the General Plan and is compatible with
surrounding land uses.
2. The project will not have any significant
environmental impact.
3. The Police Department has indicated that
•
they do not contemplate any problems.
4. Adequate landscaping and off - street parking
spaces are.being provided in conjunction
with the proposed development.
5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1970 will not,
under the circumstances of this case be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort and general welfare of person
residing or working in the neighborhood or be
detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood or the
general welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That de.v.elopment shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan,
floor plans and elevations, except as noted
below.
2. That. there shall be a minimum of two off -
street parking spaces provided on =site for
employee parking.
-21-
COMMISSIONERS1 January 22, 1981 MINUTES
7 tll I fA 3 V
M
That the existing
to Marigold Avenue
width often (10)
landscaped planter adjacent
shall maintain a minimum
feet.
4. All planting areas shall be provided.with a
permanent underground automatic sprinkler
irrigation system of a design suitable for
the type and arrangement of the plant
materials selected.
5. Landscape planting and sprinkler irrigation
plans and specifications shall be submitted
by the applicant and approved by the Parks,
Beaches and Recreation Department prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
6. All lighting fixtures shall.be located so as
to shield direct rays from adjoining proper -
ties. Luminaires shall be of a low level;
indirect diffused type and shall not exceed
a height of greater than twenty (20) feet
• above finished grade.
7. That all trash or storage areas shall be
located within the building or be shielded
from view by six (6) foot high walls or
fences.
8. That the existing double-faced gasoline
price sign, (21 sq. ft. - /face) may remain
on the.site in place of the two, 10 square
foot building signs, allowed by Section
20.06.050,C.2. of the Municipal Code. All
other signs on the property shall be in con -
formance with the provisions of the Sign
Code for automobile service stations.
That the deteriorated portions of concrete
sidewalk along Marigold Avenue and East
Coast Highway be reconstructed, and that an
Encroachment Permit be obtained from the
California Department of Transportation for
work within the East Coast Highway Right -of-
10. That an 8 -foot radius corner cutoff at the
corner of Marigold Avenue and East Coast High
• way be dedicated to the public prior to
issuance of.a Building Permit.
-22-
INDEX
y -
0
•
January 22, 1981
�m
I CRT il City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
11. That arrangements be made with the Public
Works Department to guarantee satisfactory
completion of the public improvements, if
it is desired to obtain a Building Permit .
prior to completion of the public improvemen
12. That a Tentative Parcel Map shall be filed
with the Planning Department prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit for the pro-
posed construction and alteration on the
property. A Parcel Map shall be recorded
with the County Recorder within six (6)
months of the Planning Commission's approval
of the required resubdivision application.
Request to construct a new single - story, commer-
cial building in conjunction with the expansion
and remodel.of the existing Market Basket
Shopping Center, and related off_ street parking
area in'the Unclassified District. The request
also includes the acceptance of an off -site
parking agreement for a portion of the required
parking spaces.
LOCATION: Portions of Parcels No. 1 and No.'
3 and all of Parcel No. .`2 of Record
Survey 35 -25, located at 3100 Balboa
Boulevard on the southeasterly
corner. of Balboa Boulevard and 32nd
Street in Central Newport.
ZONES: C -1 and Unclassified
APPLICANT: Innovative Graphics, Inc., Orange
OWNER: William J. Cagney
c/o Don R. Adkinson, Newport Beach
Mr. .Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, referred
to Exhibit "A ".of the staff report, Condition No.
3 and suggested that it be revised to read as
follows; "3) That the forty -foot wide Lake
Avenue right -of -way be vacated with right of
access to 32nd Street to be reserved for the
owner."
-23-
INDEX
SE P
January 22, 1981 . MINUTES
City of Newport Beach
INDEX
Mr. Webb also suggested that Condition No. 11 be
added to read as.follows: "11) That a vault
with traffic cover acceptable to the Public Works
Department be constructed over and around the
water and fire service meters in Lake Street."
Mr. Webb stated that in this way, the existing
meters and water lines will not have to be
removed.
The publ.ic.hearing opened in connection with this
item and Mr. Don Adkinson, representing the owner
appeared before the Commission.- Mr. Adkinson
stated that they are in concurrence with the con -
ditions imposed: He requested that the Commissio
ask the City Council to initiate the abandonment
of Lake Street. Mr. Webb stated that this is an
item that.can be resolved with the applicant, at
the staff level, rather than as a condition of
this development.
Motion Motion.was made for approval of Use Permit No.
All Ayes X X X X 1973, subject to the findings and conditions of
A *nt * * the staff.report and as revised by the Public
Works Department as follows, which MOTION CARRIED
FINDINGS:
1. That the.proposed expansion is consistent
with the Land Use Element of tne:General Plan
and the Draft Local Coastal Plan, and is com-
patible with surrounding land uses.
2. The project will not have any significant
environmental impact.
3. The Police Department has indicated that it
does not contemplate any problems.
4.. The required parking spaces for the shopping
center on a separate lot from the building
site is justifiable for the following reasons
a) The.off -site parking lot.is immediately
adjacent''to the subject property and is
easily accessible.
• 1 11111111 -24-
COMMISSICINERS Janaury 22, 1981 MINUTES
d
a
51WW(a
of Newport Beach
INDEX
b) The proposed development will ,not create
undue traffic hazards in the surrounding
area.
4. That the on -site fire hydrant be relocated
in an area approved by the Fire.Department,
and an appropriate ten -foot utility easement
be dedicated to the City.
5. That a document be executed granting the City
the right to drain storm water from the alley
(and its tributary area) on the southerly
side of the .parking lot to and across the
parking lot. The document shall-also allow
the City, if desired, to extend the existing
• parking lot drain to the aforementioned alley
-25-
c) The applicant has long -term agreements
for the use of the subject off -site
parking lot.
5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1973 will not,
under the circumstances of this case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort and general welfare of person
residing and working in the neighborhood,.or
be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood or the
general welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That development be in substantial confor-
mance with the approved plot plan.and
•
elevations, except as noted below.
2. That an..off -site parking agreement. be ap-
proved by the City Council, guaranteeing
that a minimum of forty -five parking spaces
and a portion of twenty -three additional
parking spaces shall be provided on Parcels
E, F and H of Resubdivision No. 301 for the
parking of vehicles for the duration of the .
shopping center use.
3. That the forty - foot wide Lake Avenue right-
of -way be vacated with right of access to.
32nd Street to be reserved for the owner.
4. That the on -site fire hydrant be relocated
in an area approved by the Fire.Department,
and an appropriate ten -foot utility easement
be dedicated to the City.
5. That a document be executed granting the City
the right to drain storm water from the alley
(and its tributary area) on the southerly
side of the .parking lot to and across the
parking lot. The document shall-also allow
the City, if desired, to extend the existing
• parking lot drain to the aforementioned alley
-25-
January 22, 1981 MINUTES
?io Ra
y 91 City of Newport Beach
INDEX
•
The document is to be executed prior to
occupancy being granted on any new struc-
tures. The wording shall be approved by
the City Attorney and Public Works Depart-
ment, and the document shall be recorded
with the Orange County Recorder's Office.
6. That the City Traffic Engineer shall review
and approve the parking lot and circulation
system prior to the issuance of Building
Permits for the new structure.
7. That all signs shall conform to the Sign
Ordinance.
8.. That a landscape and irrigation plan shall
be approved by the Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Department. Said landscaping
shall be implemented in accordance with
the approved plan and the landscaping shall
be permanently maintained.
9. That all mechanical equipment and the
storage of cartons, containers and trash
shall be shielded from view within the
building or within areas enclosed by solid
walls or fences.
10. That all exterior - lighting shall be approved
by the Planning Department.
11. That a vault with traffic cover acceptable
to the Public Works Department be construc
over and around the water and fire service
meters in Lake Street.
Commissioner McLaughlin was present for the
meeting at 9:55 p.m.
• IIIIIIII -26-
COMMISSIONERS January 22, 19 81 MINUTES
City of Newport Beach
imir CALL INDEX
Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of Item #6
the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains
to the powers and duties of the Modification's
Committee; nonconforming structures, and uses; AMENDMENT
and residential parking standards; and the NO. 557
acceptance of an Environmental Document.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach APPROVED
Planning :Director Hewicker stated that Thirtieth
Street Architects had sent to the Commission a
letter dated January 22,1981, in support of the
proposed amendment.
Commissioner Thomas suggested that the City
Council hold pre - agenda reviews, as is the. pro -
cedure in other cities and towns, so that the
Commission could be made aware of their thoughts
He stated that in this way, the Commission would
not spend undue ' time considering items such as .
Amendment No. 553, in which the Planning Commis-
• sion's.action was overruled by the City.Council.
The public hearing opened in connection with this
item and Mr. Willis Longyear, representing the
Lido Isle. C.ommunity Association, appeared before
the Commission. Mr. Longyear stated that due to
the lot configurations on Lido Isle; many of the
houses on Lido would lose the right to have a
front door, if the three car garage i's: required.
He stated that the additional parking would de-
crease the amount of buildable, living area of
the houses.. He added that he is a':member of the
Architectural Committee on Lido Isle and stated
that there is a blanket opposition on the .current
three car parking ordinance.
Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Longyear if any
homes on Lido Isle have alley access. Mr. Long -
year stated that there is only street access on
Lido Isle.
Mr. Webster Smith, representing Properties West,
appeared before the Commission in favor of the
proposed amendment.
• 1 111 1111 -27
COMMISSIONERS January 22, 1981 MINUTES
City of Newport Beach
CALL INDEX
Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect from Newport Beach
appeared before the Commission in favor of the
proposed amendment. Mr. Jeannette stated that
the proposed solutions will have a positive im-
pact on the property owners in Newport Beach. He
stated that the compact car space will help to
take more of the cars off of the street. He
added that on behalf of the Orange County AIA,
they are in support of the amendment as proposed
by staff.
Mr. Derek Niblo, builder in the area and resident
of Lido Isle, appeared before the Commission in
favor-of the amendment. Mr. Niblo complimented
staff in their preparation of the amendment. He
stated that he is particularly in favor of the
parking section of the proposed amendment and
encouraged the Commission to adopt the.amendment
as written.
Mr. Gordon Glass, architect from Newport Beach,
• appeared before the Commission in favor of the
proposed amendment. Mr. Glass stated that the
proposed amendment for.two parking spaces in the
R-1-District will primarily benefit the small
lots. He stated.that the current third space
parking requirement has placed a hardship on the
smaller lots because people have been forced to
sacrifice liveable space for car space.
Chairman Haidinger referred to Page 2 of the
staff report and asked for the Commission's
comments on not requiring modification applica-
tions in.specific cases. The consensus of the
Commission was that this.would be agreeable.
Commissioner Beek referred to.the pools, spas and
related equipment and air conditioning equipment
sections of the amendment and stated that the
hours of operation requirement should not be
eliminated, as he felt that.55 dBA is excessive
for nighttime hours. He suggested that this
matter be 'deferred until an acoustical engineer
cane.be contacted in conjunction with this - matter.
• 11111111 -28-
COMMISSICNERSI January 22, 1981 MINUTES
� �
of Newport Beach
INDEX
Commissioner Beek referred to.the structural al-
terations section and asked staff if this_revisio
will make it.harder to remodel a structure. Mr.
Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, referred
to various sections of the current Code related
to remodelling.and stated that this proposed re-
vision will actually Imake it easier to remodel.
Commissioner Beek again referred to the swimming
pools and related equipment section and stated
that greater sound attenuation than 55 dBA should
be obtained. Planning Director Hewicker'stated
that the 55 dBA is at the.property line. He
stated that there will be further sound attenuati
created by the dwelling in which the neighbors
live, who may find the noise to be offensive. He
added that An the past six years that the 55 dBA
standard has been enforced, there have been no
complaints reported.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker stated that
• at the present time there is a condition that
the pumps may be operated only between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. He stated that oper-
ating a pool pump after 8:00 p.m. is theoreticall
in violation.of the Zoning Ordinance. =He added
that there is absolutely no way to enforce a
condition of this nature.
Mr. Richard Dodd, architect, appeared before the
Commission and stated that a sound attenuating
canvas. bag device has.been invented to cut the
.sound substantially. He stated that he had not
as yet, received any information as to the actual
reduction in dBA's.
Chairman Haidinger stated that straw votes will
be cast for each of the proposed revisions. He
stated that a final vote will. then be taken on
the entire-Amendment No. 557.
Motion Motion was made to approve Section 20.10 .035 -
11* 11 *1111 Swimming Pools and Related Equipment, as proposed
in the staff report.
0 11111111 -29-
January 22, 1981 MINUTES
-1w
3 City of Newport Beach
INDEX
Commissioner Beek stated that in view of the fact
that it has been illegal to operate the pumps
after 8:00 p.m. in the past, many people are not
anxious to file complaints against their neighbor
He stated that the sound.attenuating device de-
scribed by Mr. Dodd, should be explored further,
before the 8:00 p.m. prohibition is eliminated.
He suggested that this item be continued to in-
vestigate this alternative.
Amendment X Chairman.Haidinger- amended his motion to.add.that
the pumps may be operated only between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Amendment X Commissioner Thomas asked Chairman Haidinger if
he would accept an amendment that the requirement
for acoustical engineers be eliminated. Chairman
Haidinger stated that he would- accept'such
an amendment of this nature because it would then
not become a requirement unless there was a
complaint made.
• Commissioner Allen asked staff if there is any
Way of certifying the sound level of the.equipmen
if the requirement for the acoustical engineer
is eliminated. Planning Director Hewicker stated
that they would have no way of certifying the
dBA's if this requirement were to be eliminated.
Mr. Laycock stated that as soon as the.equipment
is installed, an acoustical engineer certifies .
that it meets the 55 dBA. Planning Director
Hewicker stated that if the requirement for the
acoustical engineer is eliminated, the equipment
would only be.checked in.the event of a complaint
Amendment X Commissioner.McL.aughlin stated that she would
like to amend Chairman Haidi.nger's motion to
retain the requirement for the acoustical en-
gineer.
Commissioner Beek asked staff if an inspection
is made for compliance with the building permit
when the pool is completed. Staff replied yes.
Commissioner Beek suggested that the inspector
make the certification at that time, with a
portable dBA meter. Planning Director Hewicker
stated that the inspectors do not have such
meters and are not instructed in how to operate
same.
-30-
s
w
3 1 0
41 1�D
of `+
January 22, 1981
17■
r ,
MINUTES
INDEX
Ayes 11XI*11as I IXICommissioner McLaughlin's amendment to the motion
Noes X X to retain the requirement for acoustical engineer
Absent w now.voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED.
All Ayes IXIXI*l X X Chairman Haidinger's amended motion which would
Absent add the hours of operation . and eliminate the re-
quirement for acoustical e- ngineers in Section
20.10.035 was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Beek stated that as a matter of
record, he feels that it is poor policy that
citizens must file complaints against their
neighbors in order to obtain protection from
the laws.
Motion X Motion was made to approve Section 20.10.045 -
All Ayes X X X X X Air - Conditioning Equipment - Yards, as proposed,
Absent but with the elimination of the acoustical en-
gineer requirement, which.MOTION CARRIED.
.
Commissioner Balalis referred to the Parking
Section 20:10.050, Part A, Item No. 2. He stated
that he supports the development of single family
homes in.any residential district, not just in
the R -1 District. Therefore, he stated that he
would like Item No. A -2 of the Parking Section
to read as follows: 2) Not less than three parkin
spaces for any structure containing 2,000 sq. ft.
or more, exclusive of areas devoted to parking
and open space, unless the structure is a single -
family dwelling.
Motion
X
Motion was made to approve Section 20.10.050 -
Parking, Part A, with a revision to No. 2 that
"unless the structure is a single- family dwelling
Commissioner.Allen asked if this will encourage
people to build single- family houses, which in
fact would be considered duplexes. Commissioner
Balalis stated that most single family houses
are designed with all of the single family house
amentities. However, he stated that regardless
of how many parking spaces are required, there
are those people who will close off their garage
•
for duplex -type purposes.
-31-
January 22, 1981 MINUTES
-� 'a
City of Newport Beach
VLCALL INDEX
Commissioner Balalis stated that a single - family
house can be built with approximately 2,000 to
2,300 sgare:,feet. He stated that it would not
be economically feasible to build two separate
dwelling units on this size of lot. He added
that there is a need for single- family homes.
Commissioner Beek stated that it would not be
practical to build a bootleg duplex with less
than 2,500 square feet. He stated that.possibl,y
the square footage should be raised in the Ordi-
nance from 2,000 sq. ft. to 2, 500 sq. ft. Com-
missioner Balalis stated that he is concerned
with the parking requirements for single family
dwellings.
Amendment to the motion was.made to adopt Section
Amendment 20.10.050 - Parking, Part.A, with a revision
to No: 2 as follows: 2) Not less than.three
parking spaces for any structure containing
2,500 square feet or more,. exclusive of areas
devoted to parking and open space, unless the
•
dwelling is located in an R -1 District and does
not have alley access.
Mr. Brion Jeannette stated that his clients want
to construct nice, single family homes of approxi
mately 2,200 sq. ft. to 2,700 sq. ft., not
duplexes. He stated that single family homes
are worth more as a dwelling itself,.and have a
better resale than duplexes. He stated that to
require a single family dwelling in an R -2 Dis-
trict to have more.square footage than a single
family-dwelling in an R -1 area, does not appear
equitable and will create hardships through out
the City.
Mr. Willis Longyear stated that it is costing
some people $30,000 to $40,000 in interior l.i,ving
space.to provide the required third car space.
He stated that he is .opposed to-the third garage
space requirement.
Mr. Gordon Glass stated that legislation due to
bootleg type problems, create undue hardships
for those individuals who want to build their
• homes legitimately.
-32-
MINUTES
w
I W1 City of Newport Beach
INDEX
Ms. Judy Franco, President of the Lido Isle Com-
munity Association, appeared- before the.Commission
Ms. Franco stated that many of the streets on
Lido Isle are still designated as alleys on the
City map. Planning Director Hewicker stated that
in terms of the parking requirements, these are
treated as streets. Ms. Franco stated that they
are opposed to the three car garage requirement
because the front of the homes will be solid
garages.
Ayes
K
Amendment by Commissioner Beek was now voted on,
Noes
X
X
X
X
X
which AMENDMENT FAILED.
Absent
Commissioner Allen stated that there are differ-
ences in building a single family dwelling in an
R -1 District and the R -2 District inasmuch as a-
single family dwelling can be converted into a
duplex in the R -2 District an.d not provide the
required third parking space.
Substitute
Substitute motion was made by Commissioner Allen
Mon
X
to approve Section 20.10.050 - Parking, Part A,
AyQF
X
X
X
as proposed by staff, which SUBSTITUTE.MOTION
Noes
X
X
X
FAILED, by a tie vote.
Absent
Original motion as stated by Commissioner Balalis
Ayes
X
X
X
X
for approval of Section 20.10.050 - Parking, Part
Noes
X
X
A, with a revision to No. 2 that "unless the
Absent
*
structure is a single- family dwelling ", was now
voted on, which MOTION CARRIED.
Motion
Motion was made to approve Section 20.10.050 -
Parking, Parts B and C, with a.revision to C., 4.
as follows: "4) Parking in side yards shall be.
permitted; provided however, that structural
encroachments shall not be permitted, except as
noted in this section. When three parking spaces
are provided across one end of a lot less than
30 feet 10 inches wide, one garage wall may en-
croach into the required side yard setback. Its
distance from the property line shall be not less
than 26 inches plus the amount (if any) that the
width of the lot exceeds 30 feet: The substandar
• 11111111 -33-
January 22, 1981
�m
5 Citv of Newport Beach
MINUTES
side yard created thereby shall have a clear
passageway 26 inches wide, unobstructed by
fences, utility meters, hose bibs, or any other
appurtenance which could interfere with use of
the passageway by emergency personnel or equip-
ment. Alternatively., the side yard space may
be reduced in width to 8 feet 6 inches from the
property line. Any existing fence located on the
property line may encroach up to three inches
into this.space."
Commissioner Beek stated that this will allow
the homeowner or the builder the option to en-
croach into the other side yard.from the 26 inch
encroachment if a wide carport is desired. He
stated that.this will give the.homeowner or the.
builder the maximum flexibility.
Mr. Gordon Glass stated that.the individual home-
- owner- does. -not always have control over existing
fences. He also stated that most people on tight
. lots want fences on both sides, for various
reasons. He stated that the requirement of 8
feet 6 inches for the third space will create
problems in most eases: He stated that an 8 foot
requirement would be a reasonable standard to
impose.
Substitute Substitute motion to approve.Section 20.10.050
Motion X_ Parking, Parts B and C, as proposed in the staff
report, was made by Commissioner Balalis.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Beek, Commissioner Balalis stated that he is not
opposed to the 26 inch flexibility for the side
yard to have a wider carport, but stated that..
he is opposed to the 8 feet 6 inches requirement.
•
Mr. Laycock referred to the memo dated December 3,
1980, from the Fire Department regarding the side
yard setbacks. Commissioner Beek stated that
none of the Fire Department equipment is wider
than 24 inches. Planning Director Hewicker
stated that a 26 inch side yard is difficult
for the Fire Department to navigate.
-34-
INDEX
Motions
Withdrawn
Motion
All Ayes
Absent
Motion
Ayes
Noes
AJVnt
Motion
All Ayes
Absent
Sao
0
S11
X
January 22, 1981
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
Commissioner Beek withdrew his original:.motion
and Commissioner Balalis withdrew his substitute
motion and the following motion was made:
Motion was made to approve Section 20.10.050 -
Parking, Parts B and C, 1 thru 4, with no changes
or amendments, which MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Beek referred to Item No. C.,5. of
the parking section and stated that since this
is a major change relating to parking in front
yards, the decision should be deferred until such
time as all of the community associations have
had an opportunity for their input. Mr'. Laycock
stated that the community associations have been
notified of this proposed change.
Motion was made to approve Section 20.10.050 -
Parking, Item C.,5. which MOTION CARRIED.
Motion was made to approve Section 20.10.050 -
Parking, Part D, with a revision to Item No. 2,
the last line to read, "side across one end of
the lot ", which MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, recommended
that the words, "Subject to the provisions of
Chapter 20.83" be included at the beginning of
Item E, Section 20.10.050.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Thomas, Mr. Laycock explained the difference
between minor alterations and minor additions.
Chairman Haidinger suggested a revision to E -1
as follows, "Minor alterations such as the re-
modeling of. ."
Motion X Motion was made to approve Section 20.10.050 -
All Ayes X X X X Parking, Item E, land 2, with the revisions as
Absent * stated, to include the wording "Subject to the
provisions of Chapter 20.83" at the beginning of
Item E, and the revision to E -1 as follows,
• "Minor alterations such as the remodeling. ."
which MOTION CARRIED.
-35-
COMMISSIONERS 1 January 22, 19811 MINUTES
n
x(
Of
Beach
INDEX
Motion X Motion was made to approve Section 20.83.070 -
All Ayes X X Y X X Y Maintenance and Repairs, as proposed in the staff
Absent * report, which MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Beek referred to Section 20.83.090 -
Exempt Nonconforming Buildings and .stated that
he is concerned with the existing nonconforming
uses which do not meet the five foot required
rear setback. He stated that a distinction needs
to be made between maintaining or remodelling
this portion of the structure.
Mr.`Laycock stated that the Modifications Com-
mittee rarely permits any new construction in the
required five foot rear yard setback_.
Commissioner Beek stated that the existing non-
conforming buildings are persisting, even though
remodelling has taken place on most of these
• buildings. He stated.t,hat blanket approval.
should not be given for this to continue.
Mr. Burnham stated that Commissioner Be.ek'.s
statements are correct in that there will be a
reduced ability to control and eliminate non -
conformities in this section. .
Chairman.Haidinger stated that Section 20.83.070
on Maintenance and Repairs seems to accomplish
what Section 20.83.090 on Exempt Nonconforming
Buildings is attempting to do. Commissioner
Balalis suggested eliminating the proposed item
c) in Section 20.83.090.
MotionI 1 l,l JJ X j Motion was made to approve Section 20.83.090 -
All Ayes X X X X Exempt Nonconforming Buildings, as proposed in
Absent * the staff report, with deleting item c), which
MOTION CARRIED.
Motion I : Motion was made to approve Section 20.87.320
All Ayes X X Structural Alterations, as proposed in the
Absent * staff report,.which MOTION CARRIED.
•
11111111
�m
January 22, 1981
M
Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
Motion Motion,was made to approve Section 20.87.260
All Ayes X X X X X Parking :Space,.as proposed in the staff report,
Absent * with a revision to No. 2,, fifth line to add the
words, "posts or columns" after the words "walls
or partitions which MOTION CARRIED.
Motion X Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1061 ,
All Ayes X X X K X approving Amendment No. 557 as revised and re-
Absent * commending same to the City Council for adoption
as follows, which MOTION CARRIED.
AMENDMENT NO. 557
Chapter 20.10 GENERAL'CONTROLS - Residential Dist
20.10.035 SWIMMING POOLS AND RELATED EQUIP-
MENT - Y— ASS. Any swimming pool, fish pond, or
other body of water which contains water eighteen
inches or more in depth for use in connection
with any residential use shall be permitted in
• any required yard space, provided that the en-
closing fence required in Chapter 15.04 of this
Code is permitted under the provisions of Section
20.02.070 and 20.10.025, F, of this Chapter.
Any pump, filter or.heater installed to serve
such body of water within ten feet of a side or
rear property line (unless said property line is
adjacent to a street or alley) shall be sound
attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maxim
sound level of 55 dBA at said property line. Any
such pump, filter or heater shall not be con -
sidered an accessory building so long as any re-
quired housing thereof does not exceed six feet
in height. Pumps may be operated only between
the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 'p.m.
20.10.045 AIR= CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT - YARD
Any air = conditioning equipment installed within
ten feet of a side or rear property line (unless
said property line is adjacent to a street.or an
alley).shall be sound attenuated in such a manner
as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at
said property line. Any such equipment shall not
be considered an accessory building so long as an
. required housing thereof does not exceed six feet
in height.
-37-
UTION
w
as ��
x m
January 22, 1981
071
Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
20.10.050 PARKING.
A. Storage or parking space for the parking of
automobiles off the street shall be provided
in any residential district as follows:
Parking spaces required for other uses
allowed i-n any residential district not set forth
above shall be determined by the Planning Commis-
sion.
B. Parking of automobiles on the roof of a
building in any residential district is not
per .mi tted.
C. In addition to. the above noted parking Stan-
dards, the following parking controls shall
also apply:
1. For each dwelling unit there shall be
at least one covered parking space.
2. For each dwelling unit, there shall be
- at least one independently accessible
parking space.
• -38-
1. Not less than one and one -half parking
spaces for each dwelling unit.
2. Not less than three parking spaces for
any structure containing 2,000 sq. ft. or
more, exclusive of areas devoted to
parking and open space, unless.the
structure is a single - family dwelling.
3. Not less than one covered, independently
accessible parking space for each two
guest rooms in any rooming house.
4. Not-less than one independently accessibl
parking space for each two guest rooms in
•
any hotel.
5. Not less t.han one independently accessibl
parking space for each guest unit in any
motel.
Parking spaces required for other uses
allowed i-n any residential district not set forth
above shall be determined by the Planning Commis-
sion.
B. Parking of automobiles on the roof of a
building in any residential district is not
per .mi tted.
C. In addition to. the above noted parking Stan-
dards, the following parking controls shall
also apply:
1. For each dwelling unit there shall be
at least one covered parking space.
2. For each dwelling unit, there shall be
- at least one independently accessible
parking space.
• -38-
COMMISSIONERS
W X
January 22, 1981 MINUTES
City of Newport Beach
L CALL
INDEX
3. Tandem parking up to a maximum of two
cars in depth shall be permitted.
4. Parking in side yards shall be permitted;
provided, however, that structural.en-
croachments shall not be permitted,
except as noted in this section. When
three parking spaces are provided across
.the rear of a lot less than 30 feet 10
inches wide, one garage wall;may encroach
into the required side yard setback. Its
distance from the property line shall be
not less than 26 inches plus the amount
(if any) that the width of the.lot ex-
ceeds 30 feet. The substandard side yard
created thereby shall have a clear passag
-
way 26 inches wide, unobstructed by fence!,
utility meters, hose bibs, or any other
appurtenances which could interfere with
use of the passageway by emergency per-
sonnel or equipment.
• 5. Parking in front yards shall be per -
mitted on driveways in front of garages
that set back at least ninteen feet from
the front property line; provided, howev
that structural encroachments shall not
be permitted.
D. The one covered parking space that is require
for each.dwelling unit shall be included in
the gross floor area. However, the following
areas need not be included in the gross floor
area:
1. Other parking spaces which are open on
at least two sides, or open on one side
and one end; and
2. Twenty =five square feet of storage area
adjacent.to or a part of a parking space
on a lot less than thirty -two feet wide;
provided that no plumbing is located in
said area, and provided that three parki
spaces are provided side by side across
one end of the lot.
• 11111111 -39
COMMISSIONERS January,22, 1981 MINUTES
W
Beach
INDEX
E. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 20,83,
structures .which were in existence or under
construction on the effective date of this
Ordinance, and which do not provide the re=
quired number of parking spaces, may be
expanded or altered without providing addi-
tional required parking spaces as follows:
1. Minor alterations such as the remodeling
of existing buildings where no additional
living space is proposed; and
2. Minor additions to existing buildings,
such as the construction of bathrooms,
closets and hallways, or the expansion of
existing rooms.
CHAPTER 20 -.83 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES
20..83.070 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS.
• Ordinary maintenance and.repairs may be made to
any nonconforming building, providing no struc-
tural alterations are made. Structural alteratio
to nonconforming buildings shall require the
approval of a modification to the Zoning Code as
provided in Chapter 20.81, unless specifically
exempt from this requirement.
20.83.090 EXEMPT NOMCONFORMING BUILDINGS.
The .following types of nonconforming buildi.ngs
are exempt from the requirement of a modification
for certain repairs, alterations or additions as
provided in Chapter 20.81.
a) No Change.
b) No Change.
CHAPTER 20.87 -,DEFINITIONS
20.87.320" STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS. The
term "`structural alterations" shall mean any
change or replacement in the supporting members
of a building such as bearing walls, columns,
beams or girders.
• IIIIIIII -40-
COMMISSIONERS1 January 22, 1981 . MINUTES
M
20.87.260 PARKING SPACE. For residential
uses the.term "parking space shall mean an ac=
cessible and usable space of not less than nine-
teen feet, clear length, inside measurements
(except for the third required space noted below)
and four feet, clear height, inside measurements,
in the front four feet of said space, for the
parking of automobiles off the street_, such space
to be located on the lot so as to meet the requir
ments of this Title. The following widths for
parking spaces shall also apply (except for the
third required space noted below): .
1. There shall be a clear width of not less
than nine feet, four inches, inside
measurements, for a. single parking space;
and
2. There shall be an additional clear
wi.dth of not less than eight feet, ten
inches, for each parking space after the
• first space when several spaces are
parallel to each other and not separated
by any walls, partitions, posts or
columns; provided that if there.are only
two such spaces, their total clear width
may be a minimum of seventeen feet,
six inches, inside measurements.
The third required parking space for any struc-
ture may be reduced in area to a clear width of
not less than eight feet, inside measurements,
and to a clear depth of not less than sixteen
feet, inside measurements.
•
Any such roofed parking space to be so located
on the front one -half of a lot shall have side
walls, and an operating garage door for access
of automobiles.
The location and size of parking spaces for other
uses shall be as established by resolution of
the City.Council.
-41-
INDEX
January 22, 1981
D
City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
Request to consider a traffic,study for a propose
50,000 sq. ft. ± office building.
LOCATION: Lots 13 thru 16, Tract No. 3201,
located at 4000 and 4020 Campus
Drive, on the southeasterly side of
Campus Drive between Quail Street
and Dove Street, adjacent to the
John Wayne Airport,
ZONE: M -1 -A
APPLICANT: Pacesetter Homes, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
The public hearing opened in connection with
this item and Mr. Steve Strauss, representing
Pacesetter Homes, Inc., appeared before the Com-
mission. Mr. Strauss stated that they have
• worked with the staff in complying with the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance and that they enthusi-
astically support the carpool /van pool program.
Commissioner Balalis asked how the ride sharing
program will be enforced, when only 35 percent
of the building will be occupied by Pacesetter
Homes. Mr.. Strauss stated that the.ride sharing
program is only required for the portion of the
building that Pacesetter Homes will be occupying.
He stated that the remainder of the square footag
meets the requirements of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
Mr. Strauss stated that this request will be
replacing; existing uses which are already gener-
ating traffic. He stated that the car pool /van
pool program will be eliminating at least :nine
trips through the intersection of MacArthur
Boulevard and Campus Drive which will then meet
the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinanc
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Allen; Planning Director Hewicker and Mr. Wes
Pringle, Traffic Engineer, discussed the one
. percent requirement of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
-42-
INDEX
TRAFFIC
LY
9M
Ia
aw
January 22, 1981
M
MINUTES
INDEX
Motion
Ayes
Noes
Absent
R
Motion was made to approve the Traffic Study
as proposed in Exhibit "A" of the staff report:
Commissioner Beek asked Commissioner.McLaughlin
if she would accept an amendment to her motion,
to delete Condition of Approval No. 2. Commis-.
sioner McLaughlin stated that she would not ac-
cept this amendment to her motion. .
lCommissioner McLaughlin's motion for approval of
the Traffic Study was now voted on.as follows,
which MOTION CARRIED.
FINDINGS:
1. That -the proposed trip generation measures
are acceptable and will be permanently
implemented through the conditions of this
approval and those that may be.applied during
the resubdivision of the project site.
• 2. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project
has been prepared in accordance with Chapter
15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy
S -1, and;
3. That based on that Traffic Study, the pro-
posed project will neither cause nor make
worse an unstaisfactory level of traffic
service on any "major ", "primary - modified ",
or "primary" street.
CONDITIONS:
1. That a maximum of 43,000 sq. ft. of devel-
opment occur.
2. That the applicant demonstrate to the
satisfaction.of the Planning Department
that _a ride sharing program that is designed
.to achieve at least the traffic reduction
estima -ted in the January 8, 1981,'Traffic
Report, has been accomplished prior to the
occupancy of any development permitted by,
this approval beyond 36,700 sq. ft.
January 22, 1981
MINUTES
3 City of Newport Beach
L CALL INDEX
Item Nos. 8 through 18 were continued to the
Planning Commission Meeting of February 5, 1981,
due to the lateness of the hour.
0
Motion
All Ayes
Absent
0
X I X X
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Study Session
Planning Director Hewicker stated that the De-
partment has received letters from the Corona
del Mar Chamber of Commerce, the property owner's
association and the civic association requesting
that action on the Specific Area Plan for Corona
del Mar be initiated. He'suggested that the
staff's analysis of the Plan could be presented
to the Commission at the study session of Februar
5, 1981. Planning Director Hewicker also stated
that the Draft'fnvironmental Impact Report
for General Plan Amendment 80 -3 and the proposed
Specific Area Plan for the West Newport Triang.le
should be discussed at the study sessions in
February.
The Planning Commission set for discussion at
the February 5, 1981, Study Session, to be held
at 4:30 p:m., the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for General Plan Amendment 80 -3 and the
proposed Specific Area Plan for the West Newport
Triangle.
Excused Absence
Motion was made, to excuse Commissioner McLaughlin
from the Planning Commission Meeting of February
5, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED.
There.being no further business, the Planning
Commission adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
George Cokas, Secretary
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
-44-
DDIT