Loading...
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