Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/1987COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers n TIME: 7:30 p.m. d 9 9 0 4 DATE: January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX All Present x x x K K K x Roll Call. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x rr x Election of Chairman: Election of Acting Chairman Koppelman nominated Commissioner James Chairman C. "Buzz" Person as Chairman of the Planning Commission. There being no other names presented for All Ayes consideration, the nomination was closed. Commissioner Person was elected Chairman of the Planning Commission. * � x Minutes of January 5, 1987: Minutes of 1 -5 -87 Motion x Motion was made to approve the January 5, 1987, Ayes x x x x x x Planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION Abstain x CARRIED. * z ,r COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3225 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3225(A) permitted the establishment of a 32 bed, 24 hour care facility for the treatment of emotionally disturbed /de- pressed children on property located in the A -P -H Approved District. The proposed amendment includes a request to enclose an existing breezeway which will create addi- tional floor area to be used for a new receptionist area, an office, a staff lounge and a new dining area with kitchenette. The proposed amendment also includes a request to add two additional beds to the facility so as to establish a total of 34 beds. The proposal also includes a request to install a temporary structure at the rear of the site which will be used for classroom purposes. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 148, Tract No. 1218, located at 745 Dover Drive, on the westerly side of Dover Drive, southerly • of 16th Street adjacent to Cliff Haven. ZONE: A -P -H APPLICANT: Century Healthcare of California, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Bank of Newport, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Condition No. 3 of the staff report be modified to read "51 parking spaces" instead of "55 parking spaces ". Mr. Hewicker commented that a letter has been received from Nancy Shepherd Charlton, 731 St. James Road, dated January 13, 1987, in opposition to the subject application. He said that the Police Department was contacted regarding Ms. Charlton's concerns regarding the subject facility and the children trespassing onto her property, and that the Police Department has replied that they are not aware of any problems that could be associated with this use and adjoining residences. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. David Ellisor, 874 Katella, Laguna Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of • the applicant, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". -2- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman concerning the aforementioned letter from Ms. Charlton, Mr. Ellisor replied that the said letter has been the first complaint that the applicants have had regarding the facility. In rebuttal to the said letter, Mr. Ellisor replied that the subject facility's address has consistently been listed as 745 Dover Drive on the applications submitted to the City; that the subject facility has also experienced difficulties with children coming onto their property; that the fence that separates the subject property from adjoining properties is needing repair work; that a teenager lives in the house in the rear of the lot adjacent to the subject property and that there have been vehicle traffic and trash surrounding the said house for over a year. Mr. Ellisor contended that the children at the care facility are under twenty -four hour supervision at a ratio of one staff member for every two children. 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 In response to Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Ellisor replied that the aforementioned adjacent property has recently been cleaned up; that a chain link fence adjoins the nature trail to the subject property where the modular structure will be installed; and that a previous conditionally approved boundary wall will replace the wooden fence to the south which will stop the pedestrian access to the adjacent property. In response to a question from Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Ellisor replied that the classroom ratio is two adults for each twelve children. -3- Mr. Joseph McCarthy, 734 St. James Place, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated that his property is adjacent to the subject property. Mr. McCarthy contended that the Public Notice mailed in September noticing Use Permit No. 3225 was confusing because 745 Dover Drive was not the address on the Public Notice. He advised that previous to the occupancy of the subject care facility, the Raleigh Hills patients unlocked his gate at the fence and used his private basketball court on his property because the patients thought that the basketball court was a public court. Mr. McCarthy presented a petition from the neighbors requesting denial to the application and • a second petition requesting that a building not be constructed adjacent to the fence so that there can be access through the fence. -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �o 0 January 22, 1987 BG 9N 9�p� p S� y ` °�, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker addressed the proposed plot plan for the project and referred to the two driveways at the rear of the building and he noted that the plot plan does not show any gate or driveway to the lower portion of the adjacent property. Mr. Hewicker indicated that the applicant intends to construct a new fence along the south side of the property and that staff is not aware of a formal or informal arrangement between Mr. McCarthy and the Bank of Newport regarding ingress and egress on the lower portion of the property. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that the applicant is proposing to only build a temporary structure adjacent to the nature park. Mr. McCarthy commented that he goes through the gate every day. Mrs. Marjorie McCarthy, 734 St. James Place, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that she is disturbed that a mental facility is adjacent to her property because she has seven children and five grandchildren. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mrs. McCarthy replied that there were • never any problems during the period of years that Raleigh Hills occupied that property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the original use of Raleigh Hills as a facility for mentally disturbed children, William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, replied that the applicants did not have to go to the State for a change of use of the facility, and that the children entering the subject care facility are there on a voluntary basis and not under court order. Mr. Laycock reviewed the Public Notice of the original use permit and stated that the Public Notice indicates the same address as the subject application. Ms. Nancy Charlton appeared before the Planning Commission and testified on behalf of her letter. Ms. Charlton stated that she has cleaned up her property because she is at home to do so now. She admitted that there is a lot of teenage activity around her home because she has a teenager; however, she said that she knows for sure that children from the subject facility have approached her teenagers for drugs and alcohol and . that the facility's children are not watched close enough. -4- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o �+L0�G* 00 January 22, 1987 o-6 y ` °.V� 0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Ellisor reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he has noticed that the majority of the people using Mr. McCarthy's basketball court are over 20 years old. Mr. Ellisor stated that the care facility is anxious to cooperate with the neighbors, and that if Mr. McCarthy would be responsible for the lock on the gate on his side of the property that the applicants would support the idea of maintaining access to his property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant would not need additional approval to allow ingress and egress from Mr. McCarthy's property. There being no others to address the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman reasoned that the facility has been in operation for two years; that the applicant is willing to cooperate with the neighbors; that if there is a problem that the children from the care facility are entering Ms. Charlton's property then those children should be reported to Mr. Ellisor; that the establishment is a good facility and a worthwhile Motion purpose. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3225 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including modified Condition No. 3 from 55 parking spaces to 51 parking spaces. Chairman Person stated that he would support the motion. He reasoned that the facility is an existing use and because there are no findings that the establishment is detrimental to the neighborhood, that he would have a difficult time to deny the request. He emphasized that the subject facility treats children who have entered only on a voluntary basis. Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3225 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including modified Condition No. 3. All Ayes MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. -5- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ya �$0�G�0 o January 22, 1987 99 �iLC�lCyZ y ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3225 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3225 as approved by the Planning Commission September 4, 1986 shall be fulfilled. • 3. That a minimum of 51 parking spaces, including required handicapped spaces, shall be provided on -site. 4. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That the portable building shall be permitted on the site for no more than one year. Any extension beyond that time shall be subject to the approval of the Modifications Committee. 6. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of 'approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 7. This use permit shall expire unless exercised • within twenty -four months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. x x x -6- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ?a q y mGZZ `GZ ` Z 4 o`n y� y January 22,19- 87 ZZZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX A. Use Permit No. 3229 (Public Hearing) Item N0.2 UP3229° Request to permit the construction of an automobile sales and service facility on property located in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile TS Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes a request to allow the use of roof top parking, and the R840 acceptance of an environmental document. Approved - AND B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with the construction of an automobile sales and service facility on property located in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. AND C. Resubdivision No. 840 (Public Hearing) Request the approval of a resubdivision to create a single parcel of land where three parcels currently exist. LOCATION: Portions of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 3000 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Harris Architects, Newport Beach OWNER: Lee West, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, described a landscape planter treatment that staff had observed in Koll Center Irvine that was on the upper deck of a parking structure for the purpose of improving the appearance of the parking area from an adjacent office building. Mr. Hewicker suggested that if the Planning Commission should recommend the landscape planter treatment for the purpose of enhancing the view from the view park and adjacent properties looking down on the parking structure, then he said that staff would -7- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL 0 • MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH recommend that a landscape architect prepare a plan for landscaping the roof top parking area prior to the preparation of working drawings subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that the planter irrigation and drainage system would be connected to the public sewer. He indicated that the cost to the applicant could add an additional five percent to the cost of the parking structure. Mr. Hewicker referred to the following revised Condition No. 4 as suggested by staff if the Planning Commission should request a landscape plan as presented, "That the applicant shall prepare a landscape plan which identifies the size, type and location of all plant material and the design and location of a permanent irrigation system. in addition to the landscaping along West Coast Highway, said landscaping plan shall include a plan for landscaping of the roof top parking area. Said plan shall be prepared prior to the preparation of working drawings and shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission." In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding the concrete columns as described by Mr. Hewicker in the landscape plan, Mr. Hewicker replied that the columns would only be used to support the landscape planters. Mr. James Harris, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he stated that the applicants have met with adjacent property owners to assure them that the applicants intend to remain within the required height limit, including the landscaping so as not to obstruct any views. Mr. Harris commented that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A "; however, the applicants request that the revised Condition No. 4 to Use Permit No. 3229 indicate that the landscape plan be subject to the approval of the Planning Department instead of the Planning Commission. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, referred to Condition No. 22, Use Permit No. 3229, and corrected the condition to state "..this use permit, or recommend.." deleting the words "for the restaurant use "; and Condition No. 51 Resubdivision No. 840, to be amended to state "..the sight distance requirement may be modified.. ", deleting the word "approximately ". INDEX COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX • • In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Harris replied that the use of the upper deck parking area will be used only for vehicles in for servicing and for employee parking. Mr. Harris further replied that the applicants are not considering parking within the parking structure for the restaurants in the Mariner's Mile area. Commissioner Koppelman suggested a condition that would restrict the upper deck of the parking structure to Newport Imports uses only. Mr. Hewicker commented that a permit is not under discussion to permit off -site parking in the subject facility, and that only parking being requested would be permitted unless the subject use permit is subsequently amended or to amend a use permit for another use in Mariner's Mile. Discussion ensued between Chairman Person and Mr. Hewicker regarding restrictions of ingress and egress from roof top parking, and the hours for permitted use on the roof deck. Commissioner Koppelman contended that there are informal parking agreements within Mariner's Mile because of the lack of parking spaces for the restaurant uses, and she suggested a condition that would state that if it would be the desire of a restaurant in the area to use the subject parking lot, the restaurant would have to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker suggested a condition that would indicate that the on -site parking facilities shall only be used for Newport Imports. Mr. Harris requested that the applicants not be restricted from off - loading vehicles within the parking structure. Mr. Hewicker stated that the parking facilities on the subject site would be for the use of Newport Imports meaning not only Newport Imports who will occupy the subject site, but also the sites to the west that are also owned by the property owner of the subject property. Mr. Harris confirmed that Newport Imports does not occupy any sites further to the east. Chairman Person concluded that two additional conditions have been discussed: (1) the ingress and egress to the roof top parking, and (2) use of the parking on -site will be restricted to the applicants. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 • Gay Noy�C`9Z C ��4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Allan Beek, 1945 Sherington Place, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the Traffic Study and to the proposed buildable area. Mr. Beek reported that the Traffic Study states that no impacted intersection will be made worse because West Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue will not be affected by the project. He contended that left turns cannot be prohibited except by Cal Trans installing a raised median on West Coast Highway, and that until the median is installed to make left turns impossible, the Traffic Study is not applicable to the project and the Planning Commission cannot approve the project. Mr. Beek opined that the project appears to be too large a building for the site, and that the building appears to be excessively bulky for the Mariner's Mile area and for the surrounding neighborhood. In reference to the characteristics of the project as stated in the staff report, Mr. Beek pointed out that .5 times "buildable area" would be 42,036 square feet, the proposed gross floor area excluding the parking structure would be 32,448 square feet; however, he calculated that the storage of 60 automobiles stored on -site times 350 square feet per automobile, would add an additional 21,000 square feet to the parking structure, totalling 53,000 square feet or .635 Floor Area Ratio. Mr. Beek contended that to be consistent with the intent of Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan including the required storage area for automobiles, the Floor Area Ratio should be reduced to .50 times "buildable area ". Mrs. Marian Rayl, President of the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association, appeared before the Planning Commission to state the homeowners' concerns after they met with the applicants and reviewed the proposed project: that the subject roof -top parking structure could set a precedent; that other roof -top parking structures may not have landscaping; that 158 roof -top parking spaces is an enormous number of parking spaces for the business; the ingress /egress noise; automobile and parking structure lights shining into homes; and that the parking structure would be constructed below a view park that is currently being developed. Ms. Corinne Spence appeared before the Planning Commission expressing her concerns regarding the build -up of Mariner's Mile: that the area will become • an area similar to Harbor Boulevard in Costa Mesa; roof -top parking; roof -top lights; and the aesthetics of the Mariner's Mile area. -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES $o�LN`�G�po t+ January 22, 1987 dG 9N 9��C .o 'tp, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX There being no others to address the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman questioned if there is a precedent that has been set regarding the storage of automobiles on property and if the Floor Area Ratio is considered for automobile parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker responded that in the commercial and industrial zones of the City and some of the residential zones, surface and structure parking are not included in the Floor Area Ratio. Mr. Hewicker advised that the Planning Commission and the City Council have the option to initiate studies in that direction. Mr. Hewicker discussed a compromise plan that has been approved by the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association and the Mariner's Mile property owners, that will be coming before the City Council on February 9, 1987, regarding amendments to the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan. In reference to Mr. Beek's testimony regarding automobile storage, Mr. Hewicker replied that the • intermediate .parking level of the subject parking structure is labeled for the storage of new automobiles, and the upper deck is labeled for storage of vehicles that are to be serviced and for employee parking. He said that if the storage of automobiles would be counted on the intermediate level, then the Floor Area Ratio would go above the .39 times buildable area but if the storage of automobiles were placed on the roof, and the vehicles for servicing or employee vehicles were placed on the intermediate deck, then under the Zoning Code, the development would not exceed the Floor Area Ratio. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that Avon Street improvement would terminate at the westerly property line unless the applicant had a desire to extend the improvement to the adjacent facility. Mr. Webb indicated that the Traffic Study shows that there would be an additional 600 trips per day generated by the proposed use compared to the existing use. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Webb replied that staff would have no . objection to a condition prohibiting left turns from the subject property onto West Coast Highway. Mr. -11- COMMISSIONERS Z� his+ 99 C AA ti� Gay p C .yy �yy MINUTES January 22, 1987 ` I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Harris reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the applicant would have no objection to no left turns onto West Coast Highway. The public hearing was reopened at this time. Ms. Karen Harrington, 441 Santa Ana Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission regarding the proposed amendment to the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan, and commented that the said plan does not address the subject of roof -top parking. In response to a concern that she had regarding the 'compromise plan, Chairman Person replied that the Planning Commission will have a public hearing regarding said plan sometime in the future. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman addressed the concerns of the homeowners regarding roof -top parking. She explained that by proper conditioning of the use permit, a . roof -top landscape plan could be implemented and would be acceptable, and the adjacent residents would not be disturbed at night by the automobiles on the roof -top. Commissioner Koppelman pointed out that the proposed facility is within the Floor Area Ratio of the Zoning Code. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3229, Traffic Study, Resubdivision No. 840 and related Environmental Document subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the following added Conditions to Use Permit No. 3229: No. 24 "that the parking structure only be used by Newport Imports "; No. 25 "that the egress /ingress to the roof top parking area shall be confined to the business hours of Newport Imports "; No. 26 "that a left turn from the driveway of Newport Imports onto West Coast Highway shall be prohibited "; revise aforementioned Use Permit No. 3229, Condition No. 4 as recommended by staff; modify aforementioned Condition No. 22, and Resubdivision No. 840 Condition No. 5 as requested by staff. In response to a question posed by Mr. Harris, applicant, Commissioner Koppelman replied that revised Condition No. 4 would require that the applicant bring back the landscape plans to the Planning Commission for approval prior to the preparation of the working drawings. -12- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 M ROLL CALL 1 1 I J i l l I I INDEX All Ayes r: Chairman Person asked the maker of the motion to amend Use Permit No. 3229, Condition No. 14, which would bring the lighting and illumination plan for the roof -top back to the Planning Commission for approval at the same time the applicant brought back the landscape plan. The maker of the motion accepted amended Condition No. 14. Discussion ensued pertaining to the proposed Condition No. 25 "that the egress /ingress to the roof top parking area be confined to the business hours of Newport Imports ", and Chairman Person suggested that the hours be specific so that the City would have control. The Planning Commission concluded that the Condition would state "that there shall be no ingress /egress to the roof top parking area between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily." Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3229, Traffic Study, Resubdivision No. 840 and Related Environmental Document subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the following aforementioned additions and modifications: Use Permit No. 3229: Revised Condition No. 4; Amended Condition No. 14; Modified Condition No. 22; Added Conditions No. 24, No. 25, No. 26; Resubdivision No. 840: Modified Condition No. 5. MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the Califor- nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project; 4. That the mitigation Initial Study have proposed project and of Approval; measures identified in the been incorporated into the are expressed as Conditions -13- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL • MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. B. USE PERMIT NO. 3229: FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the development or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed develop- ment. 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems from the proposed operation. 4. The proposed use of roof top parking will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 5. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 6. That the City of Newport Beach has tentative plans to widen and /or restripe West Coast Highway which may result in loss of on- street parking and the applicant's proposed development adequately addresses anticipated parking needs for the permitted use. -14- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 A • AG�y o9NOy�C` G f�yG CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3229 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from West Coast Highway, Avon Street, and adjoining properties. 3. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an exception permit is approved by the City. Said signs shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 4. That the applicant shall prepare a landscape plan which identifies the size, type and location of all plant material and the design and location of a permanent irrigation system. In addition to the landscaping along West Coast Highway, said landscaping plan shall include a plan for landscaping of the roof top parking area. Said plan shall be prepared prior to the preparation of working drawings and shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 5. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 6. That the applicant shall be required to work with the City so as to provide additional landscaping within the Cliff Drive Park so as to screen the view of the roof top parking area from the public view areas adjacent to Cliff Drive.' Said land- scaping shall be trimmed by the City so as to -15- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES A a ; <i January 22, 1987 ��9y �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX maintain public views to the bay and ocean. Said off -site landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 7. That a minimum of 98 parking spaces shall be maintained on the site for employees and custom- ers. 8. That all employees shall be required to park on -site. 9. That the final design of on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 10. Handicap parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. • 11. The layout of the surface and structure parking shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking shall be designed so that all customer parking is a minimum 9 ft. wide and all employee parking is a minimum 8 ft. 6 in. wide with 26 wide aisles. 12. That all automobile servicing, repair, washing and detailing shall be conducted within the building. 13. That all wash water shall drain into the sanitary sewer system and that grease traps shall be provided in all drains where petroleum residues may enter the sewer system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 14. That the illumination of any open automobile display area or roof top parking area shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to eliminate direct light and glare on adjoining properties on Avon Street and West Coast Highway. A timing device shall turn off any light facing towards the bluff at the rear of the site at 10:00 p.m. every night. Said design features shall be incorporated into a lighting plan prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his -16- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES oA y January 22, 1967 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 Z t^� ROLL CALL INDEX opinion, these requirements have been met. That the lighting and illumination plan for the roof top parking area shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 15. That the applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved areas and drives including the roof top parking area. 16. That all parking areas shall be striped with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 17. That no vehicle waiting for service shall be parked outside of the building for a period longer than twenty -four hours unless it is in the process of being serviced. No vehicle shall be considered to be in the process of being serviced for a period longer than one (1) week. 18. That the floor surface of the automobile service area, structured parking areas, and roof top parking area shall be treated so as to eliminate tire squealing of automobiles. 19. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 20. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 840 shall be fulfilled. 21. That the applicant shall redesign the customer parking area and vehicle display area so as to eliminate any encroachment into the required front yard setback area adjacent to West Coast Highway. 22. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit use, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 23. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -17- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yA ����G� °A � January 22, 1987 A � 9�N4y9�Q`�Z fy�yy y ° ` °�" 9 °�' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �s�A ROLL CALL INDEX 24. That the parking structure only be used by Newport Imports. 25. That there shall be no ingress /egress to the roof top parking are between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily. 26. That a left turn from the driveway of Newport Imports onto West Coast Highway shall be prohibited. C. TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach • Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary- modified', or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of one critical intersection, but will not add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at the critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of .90 or less. D. RESUBDIVISION NO. 840 FINDINGS: 1. That the parcel map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission sat- isfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. -18- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 0o January 22, 1987 mG 9N 99y� .o s� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivi- sion. 4. That the applicant is on notice that in the future, a raised median may be installed on West Coast Highway and that left turns in and out of the site may be prohibited across the frontage of the property for future restriping or widening of West Coast Highway. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard Subdivision Agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That a 10 foot wide public utility easement be granted to the City between West Coast Highway and Avon Street prior to issuance of any building permits. That the location of the easement shall be approved by the Public Works Department and that the developer shall construct the equivalent of a 36 inch RCP or ACP storm drain within the easement as approved by the Public Works Depart- ment. Structures may be constructed over this easement as long as a minimum 16 foot vertical clearance is maintained. 5. That the intersection of the drive and West Coast Highway be designed to provide a sight distance for a speed of 40 miles per hour. Slopes, land- scaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. • Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. -19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 7. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any 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. 8. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. That prior to the issuance of any building permits or implementation of the use permit, the owner shall dedicate to the City for street and highway purposes, a strip of land adjacent to West Coast • Highway and across the West Coast Highway front- age. The strip of land is to be 12 feet in the westerly portion and tapers from 12 feet to 15 feet in width in the easterly 100 feet of the parcel. This strip is to be used for the future widening of West Coast Highway. Said dedicated strip shall not be included as part of the required landscape area for the site and shall be paved with concrete unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments for landscaped treatment. 10. That Avon Street be improved with curb, gutter, 36 feet width of pavement, and 5 foot wide sidewalk in parkway along the project frontage. A minimum of 24 foot width of pavement within the Avon street right -of -way shall be provided from the easterly project boundary easterly to existing A. C. pavement and as approved by the Public Works Department. That developers adjoining the improvements constructed by the applicant will be required to reimburse the applicant for frontage improvements if development occurs within 5 years of completion of said improvements. 11. That the existing drive aprons along the West Coast Highway frontage be removed and replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalk; that all proposed drive aprons located along the West Coast Highway -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES . January 22, 1987 mG9y�9NOy9`� O fyyC ��9y �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX frontage be reconstructed per City Standard 166 -L; that any deteriorated portions of sidewalk along the West Coast Highway frontage be reconstructed; and that all work within the West Coast Highway right -of -way be completed under encroachment permits issued by the California Department of Transportation and the City of Newport Beach. 12. That no vehicle delivery trucks shall load or off -load within the West Coast Highway right -of -way. 13. That the site shall be designed and laid out to allow vehicle delivery trucks to drive from West Coast Highway through to Avon Street. 14. That the West Coast Highway entrance drive shall line up with the Lancer's Landing drive. 15. That in the future, should the owner desire to have on- street parking, he agrees to construct a parking bay on West Coast Highway outside the dedication area to provide for said parking. Dedication as necessary to provide for the parking bay shall be provided. 16. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. A. Use Permit No. 3247 (Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to permit the construction of a two unit UP3247 residential condominium development and related garages and carports on property located in the R -2 District. 8839 AND Approved B. Resubdivision No. 839 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes. -21- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES A ; ¢G�o �i January 22, 1987 y F� ,c+ • dG�y�9N��!!! c ; so ��9y F9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 56, Ocean Front Tract, located at 5603 Seashore Drive, on the southerly side of Seashore Drive, between 56th Street and 57th Street, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: Mr. and Mrs. William D. Newsom, Whittier OWNERS: Same as applicants ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT: Gerald A. Fults, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Gerald A. Fults appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Fults concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". • There being no others to address the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3247 and All Ayes Resubdivision No. 839, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3247 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided for the residential condominium development. . 4. That the project will comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of ap- proval. -22- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 a MM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX 5. The. approval of Use Permit No. 3247 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further, that the modification to permit a bay window and two masonry pilasters to encroach into the required 18 foot front yard setback is consis- tent with the intent and purpose of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans section, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision • No. 839 shall be fulfilled. 3. That one full -sized tandem garage space and one compact carport space shall be provided for one unit; and one full -sized tandem garage space and one enclosed compact space shall be provided for the other unit. 4. That the proposed development shall not exceed two times the buildable area of the site. 5. That the average roof height shall not exceed 24 feet. 6. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Resubdivision No. 839 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of • the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 ymG �9N�^9Gyf 4Aiyt� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivi- sion. CONDITIONS: 1. That the building shall not receive final inspec- tion until a parcel map has been recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a final building inspection prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That unused portions of curb depression be removed and replaced with curb and gutter, that a standard drive apron be constructed, and that concrete sidewalk be constructed along the Seashore Drive frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to final building inspections. 7. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. -24- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Use Permit No. 3250 (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to approve a new use permit for an existing UP3250 retail sales facility that includes an outdoor display area for installed boating and automotive sound, Denied communications and alarm systems on property located in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. Said operation also includes the outdoor installation of said equipment and the use of a relocatable storage container on the subject property. The proposal also includes a request to approve an exception permit so as to permit the instal- lation of signs which exceed the size and number permitted by the Zoning Code. LOCATION: A Portion of Lot P, Tract No. 919, • located at 2912 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast High- way, between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Jorge Oubina, San Juan Capistrano OWNER: Said Shokrian, Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jorge Oubina, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Oubina replied that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B" with the exceptions that he is requesting two additional signs, and he stated his objections to the recommended Condition No. 18 in conjunction with the reconstruction of the existing driveway apron. Mr. Oubina commented that he would consider up to a cost of $2,000.00 for the driveway improvements. Commissioner Koppelman advised the applicant that the subject facility has been an enforcement problem during the past year, and that the applicant has not complied with the City's warnings to comply with the City's Ordinances. -25- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yq t�^'tc��G�go t+ January 22, 1987 . Gt^ N 9f F 99�C9Zfys. ` _� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Oubina described a slide presentation to the Planning Commission which emphasized the exterior signs of the subject business and the visibility of the business from adjacent properties on West Coast Highway. Commissioner Eichenhofer commented that the photographer took the slides by standing on the sidewalk and not from one of the lanes on West Coast Highway. James Hewicker, Planning Director, pointed out the businesses' exterior illegal signs, and he commented on the cluttered signs that are on West Coast Highway adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Hewicker emphasized that staff has spent time with the applicant by trying to tell him which signs are permitted and which signs are illegal, and that the City cannot tolerate the numerous violations. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Oubina replied that his two year lease has expired with the property owner, and that he now has a month to month lease. Chairman Person stated that when the applicant came before the Planning Commission on • January 10, 1985, for approval of Use Permit No. 3121, the Planning Commission approved the said use permit for only two years. Mr. Larry Furiani appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Furiani explained that he may have neglected to inform the applicant the severity of the violations because many of the warnings had been directed to him. Mr. Furiani stated that Mr. Oubina has made a capital improvement to the property; that the applicant had not been previously involved in an advertising campaign and that he needed to call attention to his business; that the applicant has employed a professional management team to operate his business; and that the applicant has not received complaints from his customers. Mr. Furiani concluded that the applicant did not understand the gravity of the situation. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Furiani replied that he was a part time employee, consultant, and bookkeeper. Commissioner Person advised that the Planning Commission extended themselves two years ago when Use • Permit No. 3121 was approved, over the recommendation of denial by staff. He emphasized that the applicant "snubbed" the City by providing loudspeakers outside of -26- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Z o� t�¢GZ9c^ January 22, 1987 m 99y A CITY O NEWPORT BEACH ZZR,� ROLL CALL INDEX the building, displayed umbrellas and illegal signage, and his indifference of the numerous requests presented by staff. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3250 subject to All Ayes the findings in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed outdoor display and installation of automobile and boat sound, alarm and communica- tion systems would not be compatible with adjoin- ing uses, and is not in keeping with the desired character of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area as identified by the General Plan. 2. That all recently approved automobile maintenance and repair facilities have been required to operate entirely within enclosed buildings. 3. That approval of this application will establish a precedent for other temporary uses of an open nature in the vicinity. 4. That the proposed use is inappropriate at this location, inasmuch as the subject property adjoins West Coast Highway, which has been identified as a major thoroughfare of City -wide importance. 5. That the approval of an exception to the Sign Ordinance is inappropriate because the location of the business does not preclude the effective use of permitted signs and that the 25 foot tall pole sign and awning logos, as permitted by the Sign Code, are adequate to identify the business to passing vehicular traffic. 6. That the granting of such an exception is not necessary to protect a substantial property right, will be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code, and will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or • general welfare of persons residing in the neigh- borhood, and detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, and to the general welfare of the City. -27- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES g o 0 January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That the existing automobile and boat electronics facility has violated City Codes and Conditions of Approval of Use Permit No. 3121. S. That approval of Use Permit No. 3250 will, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. A. Amendment No. 638 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community A638 Development Standards so as to allow 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area in an 11 story TS building within "Professional and Business Offices Site No. 5" and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, Approved • and ancillary service commercial uses on the subjec t property. The proposal also includes modifications to the Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of office and bank floor areas; to allow 25 percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces; and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. AND B. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with the construction of a 278,489 sq.ft. office - commercial building in Newport Place. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 40 -31 (Resub- division No. 319) and Parcels No. 1 and No. 2 of Parcel Map 183 -14 -15 (Resub- division No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the north- westerly corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C _28- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yA �L�G'FpA�ic January 22, 1987 A ;yy ��9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, introduced Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator. In response to questions that had been posed by members of the Planning Commission to staff prior to the public hearing, Ms. Temple reviewed the supplemental staff report for the subject Amendment: the comparison of the proposed project's floor area ratio to MacArthur Court; the clarification of floor area calculations; a recommended condition of approval if a reduced project is approved requiring additional parking for the athletic club; if the ancillary uses would be converted to office use; a recommended condition requiring a landscape program for the roof of the parking structure; revised findings for denial; and modified Condition No. 12 in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "C" due to errors and omissions in the suggested conditions. • The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King & Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King outlined the proposed project. He advised that the applicant has reduced the project from the original application of 1.56 floor area ratio to 1.30 floor area ratio. He said that the reduction of the floor area ratio enables the applicant to construct the project without financially threatening the project; however, if the floor area ratio would be reduced further the project would require the same mitigation measures and improvements, and would seriously threaten the project's ability to provide the area traffic improvements. Mr. King compared the proposed project to a 24 story office building in downtown San Diego as similar to the 11 story proposed bank and office building. Mr. King stated that in addition to the office use, the project includes a restaurant, service deli, a full service health club, newspaper stand, tobacco shop, florist shop, and dry cleaner. Mr. King further stated that the lobby would also be used for "after- hour" events such as charitable events. -29- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9yF`,p ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. King concluded his presentation by stating that the self- contained fully serviced work place would reduce trips from the building further by offering conference room facilities to the tenants and executive office suites. Mr. King stated that the proposed project would replace the Bank of America building, and that Bank of America would combine their various operations into a regional office and would occupy several floors and a portion of the main lobby. McLachlan Investment Company and Snyder- Langston Construction Company would also be housed on site, totalling approximately 50 percent of the square footage proposed. Mr. King stated that McLachlan Investment Company and Snyder- Langston Construction Company have a traffic management concept that has been employed by their companies in the past to reduce trips and manage traffic in their companies, and the principals of the companies are willing to write language in the lease to encourage new tenants to join with them in doing the same, resulting in a total traffic management program similar to the concept that many cities are introducing and which staff has required the applicant to do as a condition. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding proposed square footage for ancillary uses, Mr. Bill Langston, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Langston replied that 8,000 square feet is proposed for the restaurant, 8,000 square feet is proposed for the athletic club, and 8,000 square feet is proposed for the lobby. Chairman Person asked if the applicant would accept a condition of approval stating that if the project would be approved by the Planning Commission, that any conversion of the retail, restaurant, or athletic club, or the ancillary services would not be possible without further review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Langston replied that the applicant would agree to the condition; however, any conversion would be unlikely because the athletic club is in the basement, the lobby is a huge lobby, and the restaurant is located in the basement. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the size of the proposed project if the project would be reduced to .82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio from the requested 1.31 F1oor.Area Ratio, staff replied that 1.31 Floor Area Ratio would be 300,000 square -30- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yAL�,�G'FpA t+ January 22, 1987 d 9 9� .oti Gtr N °9i� t^Fy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX feet, and .82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio would be 209,700 square feet, which could be eight stories as opposed to eleven stories. In comparison to the proposed project, Mr. Langston commented that Mitsui Manufacturer's Bank is 10 stories. Ms. Temple referred to Chairman Person's previous remarks regarding a condition of approval prohibiting the conversion of ancillary uses without the Planning Commission's approval. Ms. Temple advised that the revised Planned Community text in the "reduced project alternative .82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio ", states that any conversion of the ancillary uses would require an amendment to the Planned Community text and would require the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Bill Langston, 18 Hillcrest Lane, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Langston stated that there are 7 buildings in Newport Beach that are 10 to 15 stories; in Irvine there are 15 buildings completed or under construction ranging from 10 to 17 stories and that there are 15 other projects in Irvine that range from 10 to 29 stories that are in process. Mr. Langston explained the reason for the delay of the process is that the FAA has arrived at a new criteria for evaluating heights of structures to insure no interference with the navigation signal. He advised that the signal allows for a quiet approach to a slope of 1.3 degrees away from the airport which is the height limit that the FAA would approve and not interfere with the signals. Mr. Langston indicated that the 1.3 degree slope caused the proposed project to be reduced from a proposed 15 stories to 11 stories, and that the applicants have been the only developers to work with the FAA to lower the project to fit within the FAA criteria relative to the signal. Mr. Langston stated that the applicants have met the requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission and have received their approval by lowering the building. Mr. Langston commented that the subject site is the most dramatic location for the proposed project. He emphasized that the ancillary uses will be subsidized by the building so as to confine the tenants to the • building's services in order to encourage the tenants not to travel in their automobiles to seek services elsewhere. -31- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yo �G0,9 0. 1 January 22, 1987 y 9� � *y ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mrs. Beverly Langston, 18 Hillcrest Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant and and in reference to the health club. Mrs. Langston's presentation consisted of the results of a survey of 100 men and women who work out regularly in Newport Beach. She referred to the research that indicated that the increasing need for companies to keep the employees productivity up by providing daily exercise, and also that exercise has become a "way of life" for the majority of American executives. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy comparing the proposed health club to the aforementioned San Diego health club, Mrs. Langston replied that a restaurant facility is contemplated for the health club. She further replied that one -half of the members of the health club's come from the outside but that she has not determined if the members were related in someway to the building's employees or if the members were arriving within walking distance of the building. • Mr. Allan Beek appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Beek stated that he admires the concepts of a self - contained building which reduces outside traffic; however, he felt that the project should be moved to an area where the employees are coming from. He questioned the need for more office space in Newport Beach; that the development does not have the amenities that other recent Newport Beach proposals have had; that the project is the first of many steps for increased office space in the airport vicinity; the site has the highest floor area ratio in Newport Place; and that the subject development is the first of piecemeal development in the area. Mr. Beek referred to staff's comment in the staff report that "based upon information contained in the Environmental Impact Report, all adverse environmental effects are mitigated to a level of insignificance. This project, along with all existing and anticipated future projects, will have a cumulative effect on transportation and circulation in the area which is cumulatively significant." Mr. Beek contended that the project should not be considered any more than any other project to be considered until making an over -all decision, and he remarked that the Planning Commission should contemplate "are we going to increase the -32- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX intensity all around the airport area ?" Mr. Beek concluded that the project should be denied, that the recommendation is reasonable and is consistent with staff's findings. Commissioner Koppelman referred to Mr. Beek's statement regarding the recent airport study that was withdrawn recently by the Planning Commission and she asked Mr. Beek if he felt that a study of the airport area and the intensity should be implemented? Mr. Beek replied yes, and further stated that when that study was withdrawn, the implication was that the intent of the City for its planning had been read and that the intensity in the airport area was not to be increased. He opined that was not the intent after all, that the intent was circumvent because projects would be brought in piecemeal. Commissioner Koppelman advised that the subject project pre -dated the projects included in the studies, that the proposed project has been in the planning stages for approximately two years. Commissioner Koppel-man pointed out that along with this project, if it was approved, there would be $3.5 million of traffic improvements in the area, and if the project was not approved, then a 100,000 square foot project could be built on the subject with no traffic mitigations or traffic improvements. Mr. Beek replied that he could accept a 100,000 square foot project if traffic studies show that there would not be unsatisfactory intersection problems. Ms. Temple stated that in addition to the existing Bank of America, there are approximately 80,000 square feet of development which has been previously vested under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance through the approval of the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan and two subsequent amendments to that Plan. She said that 100,000 square feet has passed through the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and is considered a committed vested project. In summary, Commissioner Koppelman concluded that the Planning Commission has the option to deny a project and not obtain any traffic mitigation measures and end up with a 100,000 square foot building on the subject site, or approve the project and obtain the mitigation measures and the $3.5 million worth of traffic • improvements. Mr. Beek rebutted that the traffic mitigation measures proposed by the project would do nothing to help the 55 Freeway and San Diego Freeway, and the other things that are so impacted by the -33- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX intense development in the airport area. Mr. Beek concluded that the City has developed and adopted a General Plan, reconciled the development with the traffic capacity, and he questioned what is the point of developing general plans and specific area plans if they are going to be eventually modified and built much larger? Commissioner Merrill asked Mr. Beek to clarify his statements regarding office space vacancy. Mr. Beek replied that he was aware of the office space vacancies by visible rental signs and what he has read in the newspapers; however, he has not differentiated between between three story buildings and buildings above three stories. Mr. Dick Nichol, 519 Iris, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichol commented that as a resident he was concerned about the density in the airport area and the change in the life style from a residential area to a metropolitan area. As a Director of the Orange County Chapter of the Air Pollution Control Association, Mr. Nichol commented that the projects in the airport area have affected the air pollution in the South Coast region. Mr. Nichol emphasized that to slow down air pollution, buildings must be built closer to the population centers where people live, and he opined that is the opposite of what is happening around the airport area. He opined that the air pollution could eventually shut down all industry in the area. In reference to "LOR ", the standard navigational aid for aircraft throughout the nation, Mr. Nichol explained the bounce that arises from buildings in the airport and Newport Beach areas, and he commented on air traffic safety. Mr. Nichol stated that the FAA has put a lid on the buildings in the airport area for safety reasons very significantly. Mr. Jerry King reappeared before the Planning Commission in response to statements made previously by Mr. Allan Beek and Mr. Dick Nichol. Mr. King commented that as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Orange County Transportation Commission, he stated that a member of the EPA has indicated that emission standards applicable to the region have not been enforceable. He said that the EPA has discussed reducing the standards for automobiles and that there • has been an attempt to "get a handle" on automobile pollution. Mr. King expanded upon the -34- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �16�10� 'o y January 22, 1987 �^ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX affordable development that is taking place in Newport Beach and the demand for affordable housing by the people who work in the area. Mr. King explained that in an effort to build membership in the athletic club in San Diego, that the athletic club has been taking members from outside of the building; however, as soon as the building is fully occupied and the demand for the health club increases from the building's tenants, the preferred members will come from the occupants of the building. Mr. King presented closing statements by describing the project's consistency with the City's Land Use Element and the General Plan, and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. There being no others to address the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Winburn asked if there would be any reduction of traffic mitigation measures if the project • would be as staff is recommending to 0.82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio? Ms. Temple replied that the Traffic Engineer reviewed the Traffic Study and indicated that the reduction in the project would not eliminate any of the proposed mitigation in the traffic study. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding a 50/50 mitigation from future projects in the area, Ms. Temple replied that the Planning Department has not received requests for any significant development in the airport area. Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that the bridge would be widened through the County airport expansion and that the County is doing significant work on Campus Drive. He _ said that the scheduling for the County work should be within two to three years, and he said that there could be a 50/50 mitigation. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Webb replied that the bridge widening project could cost between $1 million to $1.5 million. Chairman Person stated that there is a difference between the proposed project and the projects that were included in the Airport Study that was terminated by • the Planning Commission. He commented that he was aware of the proposed development during the past two years; however, the proposed project was partly delayed -35- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 0 \0 C I T Y 0 F N E W P 0 R T 8 E A C H ROLL CALL INDEX because of the change in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Chairman Person added that with those thoughts in mind, and realizing that there are entitlements of almost 100,000 square feet that could be built with no mitigation, he believed that a project which would provide the City with some mitigation measures is appropriate. He opined that if there are to be tall buildings in Newport Beach, than the airport area is the appropriate place for such buildings. In response to a statement made previously during the public hearing, Chairman Person responded that the waterfront residential area would not be affected by the metropolitan airport area. He pointed out that the applicant would be required to expend a great deal of money for mitigation. Commissioner Winburn referred to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and requirements that make the developer provide the road requirements, she opined that the project intensifies because that is necessary for the developer to come out on the development economically. She pointed out that the proposed project requires expensive improvements because of the overpass and intensifies the project in order to get the improvements in. In summary, she said that 100,000 square feet would not require traffic improvements, and that if the Planning Commission approved 0.82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio as recommended by staff which would add an additional 100,000 square feet or two-thirds of that requested by the applicant. Then the City would receive an additional $3.5 million of road improvements which is not just to satisfy the in and out traffic but would satisfy the traffic that is brought into the community outside of Newport Beach. Motion x in consideration of the aforementioned remarks, motion was made to approve Environmental Impact Report, Traffic Study, Amendment No. 638, and Modification subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". The maker of the motion confirmed with staff that the concern previously stated regarding the conversion of ancillary uses is in the Planned Community text and is not necessary as an added condition. In regard to an added condition in terms of mitigation required, Mr. Webb stated that at the present time -36- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES S;�FGF00 January 22, 1987 A� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9Zc�� ROLL CALL INDEX there are no other developments that would be required to do it. Chairman Person said that until such time as other development would occur, the applicant would be entitled to a reimbursement up to one -half of the costs of the bridge improvement. Mr. Webb said that widening the bridge will take a long time period because of processing. He asked if it was the intent of the Planning Commission that the bridge be widened before the occupancy of the building? Chairman Person replied that it is the intent of the Planning Commission that the bridge be widened as soon as possible in conjunction with the start up of the project. Mr. Webb said that if this is an improvement that is required of the developer, it would require that the bridge be completed prior to occupancy unless the project is too expensive to do himself, and then he would have to be willing to bond the improvement. Ms. Temple said that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does address improvement which are beyond the scope of the project. She said that there are four findings which must be made: • (1) That the cost of the improvement is disproportionate to the size of any traffic generated by the project. (2) That construction of the improvement shall commence within 48 months from the date of project approval. (3) That the approval of the project is conditioned upon payment of the fee to fund construction of the improvements with the amount of the fee to bear the same proportion to the estimated cost of the improvement as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. (4) That the financial contribution toward the construction of the major improvement outways the projects temporary adverse impact on unimproved intersections. Mr. King reappeared before the Planning Commission. He said that the engineering for the said bridge is underway and there have been meetings with Cal -Trans and the County and adjacent land developers with respect to the circulation improvements. He pointed out that the building will not be 100 percent leased from the time the doors are opened. He said that the -37- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES F0 0 January 22, 1987 m 9 9 9 \V�h CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX applicant would agree to bond the improvements if staff could determine expenditures. Ms. Temple said that the findings provided in the staff report were made in anticipation that all improvements would be made requirements of the project. She said that the alternate findings would be a summary of the statements made to the Planning Commission. In response to Chairman Person, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the wording of the specific conditions has been left to staff's direction provided that the Planning Commission has given the parameters and the intent so that the answer would be that the exact findings could be refined by staff but the concepts would have to be presented at the meeting. Ms. Korade pointed out that Ms. Temple has presented the concept at the public hearing. Chairman Person said that the intent is that the applicant bond for and pay for the improvement with`the right of reimbursement up to one -half of that improvement. Mr. Webb said that • the Ordinance calls for a proportionate contribution. �Mr. Hewicker added "if determined by the Traffic Engineer ". He explained whatever this particular project's contribution would be, which does not require that the improvement be in place prior to the time that the building is open but that the Planning Commission is making a finding that the improvement as planned by the County and to which the application is making a contribution, will be on the ground and in place in four years from this public hearing. Commissioner Koppelman questioned the need for an added condition to be determined by the Traffic Engineer. Ms. Temple said that the proper way would be to identify the intersection as not being a project requirement but being subject to a separate finding, and the condition of proportional contribution. Mr. Webb 'added that the Campus Drive/Bristol Street North intersection is the one referred to as being fair share which requires the widening of the bridge. Approval of Environmental Impact Report, Traffic Study, Amendment No. 638, and Modification are subject to the • recommended conditions contained in the Supplemental Staff Report as follows: to modify Condition No. 12, Amendment No. 638 Modification: "That parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space for each 250 -38- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES %o A� ;fntG�°A 0 [+ January 22, 1987 y 99 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX square feet of net ,office and retail floor area and one parking space for each 40 square feet of net public area for the restaurant and lounge, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. "; add Condition No. 13 to Amendment No. 638: "That a landscape program be developed for the roof of the parking structure. This landscape program shall be prepared prior to the preparation of working drawings for the parking structure and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. "; add Condition No. 16 to Amendment No. 638: "Prior to the issuance of building permits, a complete description of the operational characteristics of the athletic club, and a parking demand study shall be provided to the City for review. Based upon the information provided, parking in addition to that required by the office, retail and restaurant uses shall be provided as required by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director." Chairman Person stated that his motion does not reflect his feelings concerning the sites that have been • identified as the "Airport Study Area ". He reasoned that he is relating specifically to the subject site and this particular square footage that has been allotted and allocated for the subject site with the knowledge that the proposed project has been within the City's process for approximately two years; that the project is not precedent setting in respect to any of the Airport Study Area offices which were identified in the staff report in the December 4, 1986, Planning Commission meeting; that this is a separate and different project and he opined that the proposal balances the additional square footage in view of the mitigation involved based upon the existing "on the ground" square footage and is justified. In reference to the Environmental Impact Report, Condition No. 28: "The project should establish a rideshare program in conjunction with OCTD for the project employees. Carpool and vanpool matching services could be provided as well as information on implementing demand management strategies for this service. ", Commissioner Roppelman asked if the City had implemented any traffic management programs over and above what is in the condition on any other' project? Ms. Temple replied that a traffic systems management program was made a condition of approval of General Plan Amendment 80 -3 and General Plan Amendment 85 -1B which were ultimately denied; however, the City has -39- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX n u 0 imposed specific rideshare conditions on OCTD participation. Commissioner Koppelman referred to previous testimony regarding writing a traffic management into the building leases, and she asked if the program for Newport Center is one that would be applicable to a building of this size? Ms. Temple replied that staff feels that a building of the subject project's size does not provide a large enough base for sustaining a traffic management program. In further response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Ms. Temple replied that with some modification to the wording, the terms of said Condition No. 28 could be incorporated into the leases, and that the wording change would simply require that the subject of the lease would contact and participate in the OCTD rideshare programs which are currently in existence. The maker of the motion agreed with Commissioner Koppelman to add Condition No. 29 to the Environmental Impact Report which would require the applicant to incorporate the language of Condition No. 28 into the building leases. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion, and she pointed out that it was a difficult decision to decide exactly what is appropriate for the site. Commissioner Koppelman further stated that the project concept of ancillary uses on -site for the employees is a good point, and that the subject site is an appropriate place to develop any sort of high -rise structure. In reference to Chairman Person's previous testimony, Commissioner Koppelman agreed that the subject project is not a criteria for any further development in the area. Commissioner winburn stated that she has had difficulty supporting the project as far as increasing the density to provide for the traffic mitigation measures. She reasoned that the project has been reduced and that with the measures that have been taken as far as the pro -rata share of the large $3.5 million or the $1.5 million as previously stated by Mr. Webb, for the cost of the bridge at that location, she felt that she could approve the project. Commissioner Winburn further stated that she felt that the applicant has been going through the "pipeline" for the past two years, and for one reason or another, the project has not been able to come forward to the Planning Commission. -40- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yo p ;FAG F° F1 January 22, 1987 R 9 9 9 'oo S GFNPf F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9yF,n ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Merrill referred to Mitigation Measure, Condition No. 28, and stated that the condition should be amended to "the project shall establish a rideshare program.. ", instead of "the project should establish a rideshare program... ". Commissioner Merrill suggested that staggered starting times should be addressed. Chairman Person stated that he would accept an amendment to the motion to modify Mitigation Measure, Condition No. 28 from "should" to "shall ". Ms. Temple requested that Condition No. 14 of the Modification be deleted because the condition required a subsequent traffic study. Chairman Person accepted the recommendation as a part of the motion. Commissioner Merrill addressed the issue of flex -time and the success that flex -time has had in other areas of the state. He pointed out that the concept has to start somewhere, and that if the concept is impossible to implement at this time, then there should be a • condition that would encourage the applicant to initiate the flex plan. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the success of flex time during the Olympics when there were better traffic conditions, and he pointed out how well the plan can work if it is planned, and that people cooperated. Chairman Person stated that he would agree to a condition that the applicant submit a flex -time program to the Traffic Engineer for approval as part of the proposed project as Condition No. 30. Commissioner Eichenhofer asked if the condition would mean that from now on that office development of any size would be obligated to have flex -time? Chairman Person replied that the Planning Commission would look at the plan on a project by project basis. Commissioner Eichenhofer contended that the uniqueness of the commercial services in the proposed building are going to accomplish some traffic management which is one of the reasons that she stated that she would support the motion. She questioned if making flex -time that strong would be appropriate for this project, and she said that she is having difficulty with the condition as much as she would like to see the concept implemented. -41- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y o ;�yG FGAt'� January 22, 1987 B 9 A9 .py G9 y N° 9��yy � Fyy CITY OF NEWPORT .BEACH syF,� ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Koppelman addressed the flex plan as a condition to be approved by the Traffic Engineer and the different uses in the building automatically become a flex plan, and she questioned if it would be at the discretion of the Traffic Engineer to leave it alone if it seems to be working, and let the Traffic Engineer make the determination? Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that many times flex time is resisted by management but is virtually always highly well received by the employees, and that if the concept is a part of the program of the office and mentioned in the terms of the lease, then the plan will induce people to come there who will accept and embrace the concept. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she did not know if Commissioner Merrill intended the flex -time to be a part of the lease; however, she said that she felt that it would be a good idea along with the OCTD. In response to a concern of Chairman Person, Commissioner Eichenhofer replied that she would accept the condition as long as the applicant would not be locked in. Chairman Person included aforementioned Conditions No. 29 and No. 30 to the motion. In response to statements made by Chairman Person and Commissioner Merrill regarding Revision No. 2 to Amendment No. 638 pertaining to the proposed project's 241,570 square feet and eleven stories, Ms. Temple advised that staff did not delete "eleven story" because it reflected the maximum level the FAA and the Airport Land Use Commission were willing to consider. She explained that if the reduced project is, in fact, constructed, the developer may build anywhere within this height limit that is appropriate for his project. Ms. Korade confirmed with Chairman Person that the wording of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 15.040.030 A (i) (C) 1, 2, 3, and 4, have been included as Findings in the Traffic Study as applied to the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street. Mr. Webb presented the following Condition as the condition relates to the aforementioned Findings: "That the designated Traffic Phasing Ordinance improvements to Campus Drive and Bristol Street North intersection -42- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �p 0, January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX falls under Section 15.040.030, and that the applicant would contribute his fare share to the construction of those improvements." Mr. Hewicker referred to the discussion regarding flex -time, and he asked if the Planning Commission had a specific trip reduction to achieve so that when the plan is approved by the Traffic Engineer and monitored, the City can measure the plan and see if the plan is achieving the intended reduction. Chairman Person indicated that the maximum is what the Planning Commission is trying to achieve. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman if the traffic management program as proposed for Newport Center consisted of flex -time, Ms. Temple replied that the trip management program required of Newport Center was a part of a mitigation measure and was not a part of any specific Traffic Phasing Ordinance or traffic circulation system requirement. She said that it was a combination of many methods as is the condition the Planning Commission is proposing. She pointed out that no specific performance standard was included because based on the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the project was anticipated to comply with all of the Ordinance standards. Ms. Temple emphasized that in a project of this size it becomes more and more difficult to identify what would be an appropriate level; however, when dealing with a very large scale where one entity has control over a great number of employees, it is easier to identify goals than when dealing with a multi- tenant office building. Commissioner Eichenhofer suggested that information be collected and re- evaluated at a later time. She commented that if flex -time is encouraged the City should assess what the different hours are and then make the determination of compliance with the condition. She concluded that it is difficult to make that determination at this time. In summary, Commissioner Eichenhofer said that what the Planning Commission is trying to do is reduce peak traffic. Commissioner Koppelman pointed out that flex -time is going to be at the discretion of the Traffic Engineer, • and she expressed that what the Planning Commission may do is take up the issue as to what kind of criteria should be set, and since the discretion of the Traffic -43- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yo 'F°�in January 22, 1987 oy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Engineer will be doing this, perhaps the Planning Commission could give him that input at a later time after the Commission has taken the plan under study. Chairman Person advised that "appropriate guidelines for the Traffic Engineer shall be supplied at a later date" will be added to Condition No. 30. Motion was voted on to approve Environmental Impact Report, Traffic Study, Amendment No. 638, and Modification subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the following revisions: Mitigation Measures: modify Measure No. 28, add Measures No. 29, and No. 30; Traffic Study: Findings No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, No. 8 and Condition No. 2; Modification: modify Condition No. 12 and delete Condition No. 14 and add All Ayes Conditions No. 15 and No. 16. MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Findings: • 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines, and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. -44- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �q * "January 22, 1987 99 °y�9yfyy y ` , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. • 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan). 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 8. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 9. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 10. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of • weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. -45- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yq �+L��Gfpq January 22, 1987 5 CITY OP NEWPORT BEACH 9yF,� ROLL CALL INDEX 11. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the property line. 12. All structures should be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise criteria: Typical Use Leg (h) Private office, board room, conference room, etc. 45 General office, reception, clerical, etc. 50 Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, etc. 55 13. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or sub- • leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Re- strictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport will not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; c.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. • 14. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. -46- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 M ROLL CALL J J I J l l I I INDEX 0 • 15. That all buildings on the project site 'shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 16. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 17. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 18. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 19. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. A weekly cleanup program around the docks and public walks shall be conducted on a regular basis. 20. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T -20, Chapter 2, Sub- chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. 21. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 22. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water- saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 23. Where feasible, reclaimed water should be utilized for non - contact purposes such as irrigation. 24. Efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation should be installed. Irrigation should be automatically timed during early morning hours to minimize waste and evaporation. 25. The project shall construct any additional on -site water distribution facilities required by the new development. 26. Trash compactors shall be utilized to the extent feasible to provide more effective trash disposal. -47- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES oq y January 22, 1987 G N 9, Y Atn Fy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 27. Pedestrian walkways (handicapped accessible) should be provided from the proposed project to to MacArthur Boulevard for convenient access to bus facilities. 28. The project shall establish a rideshare program in conjunction with OCTD for the project employees. Carpool and vanpool matching services could be provided as well as information on implementing demand management strategies for this service. 29. The requirement to establish a rideshare program in conjunction with OCTD shall be made a provision of tenant leases for the project. 30. Tenants of the project shall be required to make flexible working hours available to their employees. The flex -time program shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer, and appropriate guidelines for the Traffic Engineer shall be supplied at a later date. • B. TRAFFIC STUDY: Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing morning or afternoon 2.5 hour peak period on a leg of fourteen critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at nine critical intersections, which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the Traffic Study suggests several circulation system improvements which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at all critical intersections. 4. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements, will neither cause, nor make -48- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 F 99 9P`y�Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX worsen unsatisfactory level of traffic service at on any major, primary - modified, or primary street. 5. That all identified intersection improvements shall be made by the applicant, except for the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North. The time and money necessary to complete the improvement at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North is clearly disproportionate to the size of and traffic generated by the project in that the improvement will require widening of a bridge over the Corona del Mar Freeway. It would be unreasonable for the City to condition the project on completion of this improvement. 6. That the improvement at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North is a part of the improvement program of the County of Orange associated with John Wayne- Orange County Airport, and is anticipated to commence construction in three years. The County of Orange is currently conducting necessary studies and design work, along with cost estimates for this improvement. The improvement is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. 7. That the project will be required to pay a fee to fund construction of the improvement at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North and that the fee will be proportionate to the ratio of project generated traffic at this location, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. This fee is in addition to any other fees, contributions or conditions imposed on the project. S. That the project's contribution towards construction of major improvements substantially outweighs the project's temporary impact on the unimproved intersection. Conditions: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the project, the circulation system improvements identified in the Traffic Study, ,dated August 20, 1986 (Pages 28 -30), except at the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North, shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto) . The circulation -49- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 t^ A BG�y o9NayyC9C G 00�yC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 2. That a contribution to the improvement at the intersection at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North proportionate to the ratio of project generated traffic at this intersection as determined by the City Traffic Engineer will be made by the applicant pursuant to section 15.40.030 AA(c) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. C. AMENDMENT NO. 638: Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 638, with the following revisions: 1. Page 5, Section II.B. revise to read " *Site 5 .... 241,570 sq.ft. (16)(19)(20)^ *If commercial uses are constructed which are 40 ancillary to and in the same building as office uses, addition development up to a maximum of 294,600 sq.ft. may be developed, so long as the office use does not exceed 241,570 sq.ft. 2. Page 6 "Site 5 .... 241,570 sq.ft. F. Eleven story D. Site 5 ... 1,267 cars..." MODIFICATION: Findings: 1. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 2. The proposed number of compact car spaces consti- tutes 25% of the parking requirements which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applica- tions. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. -50- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 4. The proposed modification for compact parking and provision of parking at a ratio of one space per 250 sq.ft. will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 2. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee a satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 3. That the on -site parking (including signing of compact and handicap spaces) , vehicular circu- lation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 4. That the intersection of streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The sight distance requirements may be approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 5. That an easement be provided between parcels within the development for ingress /egress and parking. 6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. -51- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yq q�g�FG'Foq January 22, 1987 99�yf�t�yS y ` °��~y �q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That all unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. All drive aprons along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages shall be con- structed per City Std.- 166 -L. 8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain . facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. Any 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. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. • 10. Access to the site shall be redesigned to minimize the number of driveways. An access study shall be prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer and will be required if more than a single, two -lane access is proposed for any street. Approval of access points with two or more egress lanes shall be subject to revocation if the City Traffic Engineer finds that they create a hazardous condition. 11. The driveway shall be designed in accordance with Std. 110 -L for sight distance requirements. This standard may be modified by the City to recognize the absence of parking lanes. 12. That parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space for each 250 square feet of net office and retail floor area and one parking space for each '40 square feet of net public area for the restaurant and lounge, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 13. That compact parking shall not exceed 25% of the parking spaces provided. 14. Deleted. 15. That a landscape program be developed for the roof of the parking structure. This landscape program -52- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y ;��GtoA t+ January 22, 1987 • �y �� `Cow 9�yo� CITY OF NEWPORT REACH ROLL CALL INDEX shall be prepared prior to the preparation of working drawings for the parking structure and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a complete description of the operational characteristics of the athletic club, and a parking demand study shall be provided to the City for review. Based upon the information provided, parking in addition to that required by the office, retail and restaurant uses shall be provided as required by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director. The Planning Commission recessed at 11:05 p.m. and reconvened at 11:15 p.m. x * x • Use Permit No. 3249 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to permit the construction of a single family UP3249 dwelling on property located in the R -1 District which exceeds the basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Continued Limitation District; and the acceptance of an environ- to 2 -19 -87 mental document. and renotice LOCATION: Lots 6 and 13, Block C -33, Corona del Mar, located at 2717 Shell Street, on as a the southwesterly side of Shell Street variance between Fernleaf Avenue and Way Lane in China Cove. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: Donna and Ernest Schroeder, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented that a copy of a letter to Brion Jeannette, Architect, dated • January 21, 1987, has been .received from the Coastal Commission staff attached with a copy of a letter from Donald Bright of Bright & Associates, dated January 12, 1987, regarding the Coastal Commission's action of the -53- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o 16�610 January 22, 1987 O4y .00 0\<11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX meeting of November, 1986, and the fact that the Coastal Commission staff is preparing a response to the statements made by Mr. Bright. He stated that the concerns by the Coastal Commission should not affect the ability of the Planning Commission to evaluate this application in light of the City's zoning regulations. The public hearing was opened at this time, and Mr. Ernest Schroeder, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schroeder reviewed the history of Variance No. 1134 presented to the Planning Commission on July 10, 1986, and to the City Council on August 11, 1986 and subsequently denied. Mr. Schroeder stated that the plans that were presented to the Coastal Commission were negotiated and the Tidal Use Agreement and the stringline designation were agreed upon between the applicants and the Coastal Commission. Mr. Schroeder responded to staff's criteria for granting use permits, and in conclusion, he stated that the use permit will allow the applicants to go above • the tidal action, build an architecturally attractive home, create six off - street parking spaces, and improve views from public beaches and bluff tops. Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect, appeared before the Planning. Commission. Mr. Jeannette submitted photographs of the area including the building proposed and the adjacent homes. Mr. Jeannette referred to the plans presented to the Planning Commission and explained how the structure of the livable area was reduced from the original plans to 3,460 square feet, and how the building was moved back to the rocks so there would not be an encroachment. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Jeannette described the roof line heights, and the height adjustments that could be accomplished. Chairman Person considered if he could find a finding for a use permit which would increase the building height and would result in more public open space, and if the application would be more appropriate as a Variance if the applicant would redesign the front and the rear of the building so as to comply with the basic • 24 foot height limit of the Municipal Code in said areas. Mr. Jeannette stated that The Zoning Code provides that to approve a use permit to exceed the basic height -54- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yo 0 January 22, 1987 gfsl °yf�yf S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX limit, the increased building height would have to result in more common visual open space and view than is required for the basic height limit in the zone, and the regulations do not make reference to a Coastal zoning overlay. Chairman Person contended that the required setback, because of the stringline, reflects that the requirement of the Coastal zone should be taken into consideration. He pointed out that he thought that it would be difficult to make a finding for the increase in building height, that would result in more public open space. Mr. Jeannette stated that the comments could be looked at as a viable option. Commissioner Koppelman concurred with Chairman Person by stating that the use permit finding is difficult to make; however, she added that there would be no guarantee that a variance request will do any more good than the use permit. Chairman Person stated that he appreciated the applicants bringing the bulk and density down from the original variance. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Jeannette explained the heights of the flat roof areas surrounding the childrens' rooms. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding the applicant returning with a variance which would have to be noticed but the applicant would not have to pay a filing fee, Mr. Jeannette replied that the applicant would agree to come back with a variance to the Planning Commission on February 19, 1987. Commissioner Merrill stated that his concern is the views from the hillside lots and the bayside height of the project. Mr. Jeannette explained the height reductions that could be made in the living room and the master bedroom. In response to Commissioner Eichenhofer, Mr. Jeannette replied that the reductions as he suggested for the living room and the master bedroom would bring the height below the basic 24 foot height limit. Discussion ensued between Mr. Jeannette and Mr. Hewicker regarding the reduction of the square footage -55- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 Na \� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLLCALL11 I Jill I I INDEX of the building from the Approval in Concept that was submitted to the Coastal Commission, and the compared heights of the approved Beauchamp's home and the China House adjacent to the proposed structure. In response to further discussion including Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Hewicker summarized the request by stating that the architect has indicated that he can reduce the height of the building on the bayside, that there are topography problems because the building site is high on both ends and low in the middle, and the question of the height of the building on Shell Street. Mr. Hewicker concluded that the applicant is proposing to provide more parking spaces than is typically required, and that while there may be additional open space generated as a result of the building going higher, one of the reasons that the building is higher at the rear end is that they have proposed additional covered parking spaces in said area. James Moreland, neighbor who lives across Shell Street from the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, stating his concerns regarding an area in the garage that could be . converted into a room. Mr. Hewicker explained that the plans presented to the Planning Commission and staff are what the building is intended to be, and if the applicant would convert the area illegally, then the applicants would be subject to coming back before the Planning Commission, City Council, and Coastal Commission. Mr. Moreland discussed and described his home and questioned why he had been turned down by the City when he had inquired about raising his building's height. Motion x Motion was made to direct staff to permit the applicant to apply for a Variance and to come before the Planning Commission meeting on February 19, 1987, without the necessity of reapplying, and that staff renotice the Variance. -56- Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the Planning Commission attempt to give the applicant an indication for plan alterations before asking the applicant to return. • Chairman Person indicated that he could not do that. He said that there may be a justification for a -56- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yA pp 0, January 22, 1987 16 yF �y kol- A0 9 tiyk06 09 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 ROLL CALL INDEX variance because of the unusual topography of the site, which is the basis to grant a variance. Mrs. Donna Schroeder, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to Mrs. Schroeder's concerns, Chairman Person replied that he denied the previous Variance because of the bulk and size of the building as proposed. He explained that he did not agree that because of the stringline, the Planning Commission is able to make a finding to approve -a use permit to exceed the basic height limit. Mrs. Schroeder explained that the bathroom on the lower floor is a beach bath, and that the garage would only be for automobile parking. Chairman Person suggested that the applicants come back to the Planning Commission within the permitted height limit on the bayside, do what they can at the rear of the property to bring the building within the height limits, and he added that the applicants should attempt to keep the bulk, mass and density to a level as proposed for the use permit. Chairman Person emphasized that he would • not guarantee how he would vote. Motion voted on to return the application as a variance to the Planning Commission meeting on February 19, All Ayes 1987. MOTION CARRIED. D I S C U S S I 0 N I T E M S: Discussion Items Addition of a "Public Comments" Section to Planning Agenda Item Commission Agenda (Discussion) INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion x Motion was made to direct staff to place a "Public Ayes x x x x x x Comments" section on the Planning Commission agenda No x following the approval of the Commission minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. w x -57- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ZA o� ;ceyG F0p��t+ January 22, 1987 BG�9N99� .psi CITY OF NEWPORT REACH ROLL CALL INDEX Request to review the Planning Commission Rules of Review of Procedure (Discussion) Rules of Procedure INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion x Motion was made to direct staff to incorporate the All Ayes recent revisions of the Brown Act into the Commission's Rules of Procedures and to submit said revisions for Commission review on February 5, 1987. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. P U B L IC COMMENTS: Public Comments (Public Comments are invited on nonagenda items. Speakers must limit comments to 3 minutes.) No persons came forth to speak on nonagenda items. None 0 awe ADDITIONAL BUS I N E S S Additional Business - Motion All Ayes x Motion was made to approve Commissioner Eichenhofer and Commissioner Koppelman to be excused from the February Excused 5, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, Absences MOTION CARRIED. A D J O U R N M E N T: 12:10 a.m. Adjournment PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -58-