Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/1987COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers yo ;SSG Fpq TIME: 7:30 p.m. 'yam DATE: February 5, 1987 �� �� `` °�' 9$y�' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 S t^� ROLL CALL INDEX Present x x x x x Commissioner Eichenhofer and Commissioner Koppelman Absent x x were absent. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Craig Bluell, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of January 22, 1987: Minutes of 1 -22 -87 Motion x Motion was made to approve the January 22, 1987, Ayes Planning Commission minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION Absent x x x x x x x CARRIED. Public Comments: Public (Public Comments are invited on non- agenda items. Comments Speakers must limit comments to three minutes.) No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Report from the Planning Director Confirming the Posting of Posting of the Agenda: Agenda Planning Director Hewicker informed the Planning Commission that the Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, January 30, 1987, in front of City Hall. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yq A�:j��G�oA February 5, 1987 sy� cy << oiyyc.� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Amendment No. 638 (Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to consider and /or modify a condition applied P638 to the approval of the application of McLachlan Invest- — ment Company for Amendment No. 638, and the associated Condition - Traffic Study, Modification, and Environmental Impact ally Report. The approved project will amend the Newport Approved Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 108,836 sq.ft. of additional office and bank floor area within Professional and Business Office Site No. 5. The condition to be reconsidered is regarding the requirement for a flex -time program in the develop- ment. 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 APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the purpose for the subject item is for the reconsideration of the condition of approval regarding flex-time which was approved by the Planning Commission at the January 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hewicker referred to the letter from SPON dated February 5, 1987, in response to the staff report. Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, stated that staff has submitted three alternatives to modify the condition that was placed for the use of flex -time for the building. She explained that two of the alternatives involve placing a specific percent participation or trip reduction factor into the condition, and the third alternative would modify the condition as applied by the Planning Commission to • impliment a more extensive traffic demand management system for the building in a manner so that the -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yA A��L��G'fpA 41. February 5, 1987 A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Department and the Public Works Department could measure and assess the effectiveness of transportation demand management programs for multi- tenant office buildings. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, 3187 Airway, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King referred to the City of Irvine's 30% to 408 traffic reduction goals and he said that the goals make reference only to two new projects. He pointed out that the development coming into the two projects start on equal ground, and it is geographically and developmentally a more equitable system in their particular case. Mr. King stated that he met with the City of Irvine and discussed their follow -up while they are imposing the goals, and their participation with the participants has been basically voluntary because they do not now have the staff or mechanism to insure the compliance nor do they do any testing. Mr. King indicated that it is the City of • Irvine's long range goal to work towards a traffic management system that can be applied throughout the City. Mr. King indicated that the applicants.concern is that the project is in an area where there is redevelopment, and there is existing development on -site. He said that the applicant feels that an alternative that is too restrictive places the project at a unique disadvantage. Mr. King advised that the applicant agreed to a condition previously and expressed willingness to comply with a traffic information program. He stated that two of the major tenants of the building who are principals in the project have had a time management program for the past two years. He maintained that the Bank of America and future tenants will be approached to comply with a flex -time program. Mr. King further stated that OCTD literature will be available in the lobby area for distribution. In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Ms. Temple replied that most projects that are involved in trip reduction programs use more than one method, and that she is not aware of any other projects within the • City that are currently using only flex -time. In reference to Alternative Condition C.3.a. Chairman Person asked if a specific minimum goal could be implemented for trip reduction so that a maximum goal -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yA A� ;�'fG7°A February 5, 1987 A • �G9 �N °Z�!`�L Cy��S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 y taA ROLL CALL INDEX could be looked at in the future. Ms. Temple replied that staff has set a traffic reduction goal of 20 percent; however, the Planning Commission could change that percentage to a mandatory reduction and choose whatever percentage they feel is appropriate. Commissioner Kurlander suggested that the Planning Commission should postpone setting a minimum traffic reduction because the subject project is the first project imposed. Commissioner Pomeroy stated his concern is that Alternatives A and S just relate to flex -time, proposing a traffic reduction of 20 percent. He explained that Alternative C allows four methods to be used at the same time in order to achieve the same traffic reduction. As such, the proposal won't be an effective measure of flex -time, and he opined that if the project is going to act as a test a higher minimum standard should be achievable with all four • alternates included. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 638, Alternative "C" as Measure No. 28, which would delete previously approved Mitigation Measures No. 28, 29, and 30. Commissioner Winburn reasoned that a realistic performance criteria is needed before establishing specific percentages, and also that the building will have a mixed use which will reduce the peak hour traffic time. Commissioner Pomeroy requested the maker of the motion to amend Alternative C.2 to 258 reduction instead of 208 reduction. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. Motion voted on to approve Alternative C as Measure No. 28, amending No. 2 from 208 reduction to 258 reduction, Ayes x x x x x and to delete previously approved Measures No. 28, 29, Absent x x and 30. MOTION CARRIED. No. 28. Prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Permit the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program. The TDM program • shall be included in all tenant leases in the building. The program shall include the following features: -4- COMMISSIONERS '?m �•A FZ GZ oA ¢Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 5, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX 1. The Transportation Demand Manage- ment Program shall include a coordinator with the specific assignment of developing and overseeing the program. In addition, each tenant with 50 or more on -site employees shall designate a contact person for both employees and the coordinator. 2. GOAL: 25% reduction in a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation when compared with City standard rates. 3. METHODS: The TDM program shall provide for all listed methods, and shall require that each tenant specifically identify one or more method for implementation with its employees. • a. Flex -time: May consist of assigned staggered hours_ or may allow employees to select their own hours if acceptable to the tenant's' needs and results in desired trip reductions. Flex -time also includes four day or other alternate work weeks. b. Public Transportation: Each tenant shall be required to participate in the Orange County Transit District ridesharing computer match program. Public Transit route information shall be made available in the lobby of the building or any other accessible public place. Each tenant shall make subsidized transit passes available to all employees. C. Carpooling: This method . utilizes vehicles already owned by employees for ridesharing. A variety of incentives may be used to -5- COMMISSIONERS ypyl�l�y MINUTES February 5, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT REACH ROLL CALL INDEX promote carpooling including preferential parking and periodic prize drawings limited to participants. The project shall be required to provide structure parking to carpools at no charge. d. vanpooling: This method is similar to carpooling, except that it usually includes the purchase of a large, comfortable vehicle. This method can be supported with information on vehicle acquisition and financing, and may include financial assistance or the provision of vehicles. 4. EVALUATION: A report shall be sub- • mitted to the City every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter. The report shall discuss the various methods in use and participation levels. It shall also include traffic counts entering and leaving the site for each fifteen minute period during the peak two and one -half hour period for morning and evening. Counts are to be taken on a representative day during midweek. • -6- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 5, 1987 INDEX General Plan Amendment No. 87 -1 (Discussion) JItem No.2 Request to initiate amendments to various elements of GPA 87 -1 the Newport Beach General Plan as follows: a. Land Use Element Update b. Noise Element Update C. Newport Center d. Plaza de Cafes (Koll Center) e. Circulation Element Update Mr. Kevin Consey, Director of the Newport Harbor Art Museum, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he read a letter addressed to James Hewicker, Planning Director: "That the Planning Commission postpone indefinitely consideration 'of a proposed planning amendment that would enable the museum and the library to increase their buildings in Newport Center. The museum is still in the process of examining options and is not prepared to make a presentation or a request at this time, nor is it prepared to respond at this time to other proposals." Ms. Karen Evarts, Chair, Board of Library Trustees, appeared before the Planning Commission requesting additional time for study for the need of future square footage for the Newport Center branch. Commissioner Kurlander explained that this item is only a recommendation to the City Council to initiate the subject amendments, and if City Council should approve the request to initiate the amendments, the said amendments would come back to the Planning staff for finalization. Mr. Hewicker, stated that the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the Library have not finalized what the request is in terms of square footage or location within Newport Center. He said that inasmuch as there is negotiating going on, staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission would be to initiate an amendment for Newport Center, not specifying any use, any area, or any square footage, and to allow the City Council ad hoc committee which has been created specifically by the City Council for the purpose of reviewing -7- Recommended) Initiation COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 5, 1987 \M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I I I INDEX development in Newport Center, take the lead. He explained that the ad hoc committee is holding meetings every Wednesday morning with groups within the community, and that it is anticipated that the committee will complete their work at the end of March, at which time they will be able to make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Hewicker further stated that the City Council ad hoc committee could make any recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council could finalize what this amendment would be, and he added, there would be a holding position for a General Plan Amendment for Newport Center. Mr. Hewicker further explained that if the Newport Harbor Art Museum or the Library have not come to any conclusions in April as to what they want, they may come back to the City in June or October. Motion I I I I JxJ I I Motion was made to approve General Plan Amendment No. 87 -1 A., B., C., D., and E. Chairman Person emphasized that GPA 87 -1 C (Newport Center) does not refer to any x x x site, any use, or any density other than the fact that Absent it is within Newport Center. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 57,912 sq.ft. office building on property located in the M -1 -A District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking. AND B. Waiver of Parcel Map (Discussion) Request to waive the requirement of a parcel map for the combining of lots in conjunction with the con- struction of a new office building on property located in the M -1 -A District.. • LOCATION: Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, Tract No. 5169, located at 4361, 4401, 4423 and 4443 Birch Street, on the northwesterly side of Birch Street, between Dove Street and MacArthur Boulevard, across from the Newport Place Planned Community. -8- Item No.3 TS Waiver of Parcel Map Approved COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 5, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Fidelity National Title, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Glen Lanker, GNF Architecture, San Diego, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In reference to the staff report regarding the floor area of the subject property, Mr. Lanker explained that there was a need to adjust the 58,000 square foot figure shown on the site plan to just under 57,000 square feet so as to clarify the definition of buildable area for the City. He explained that initially the applicant misinterpreted the allowable buildable area and based the design on .5 times the buildable area of the entire property, and not excluding the front yard setback area. He stated that he understands there is a provision in the Municipal Code that the allowable area can be increased • up to 1.0 times the buildable area if there is no additional traffic impact. Mr. Lanker maintained that the traffic study showed there was no significant impact inasmuch as the maximum increase in traffic was about .3 percent. Mr. Lanker indicated that the traffic study was based on 52,000 square feet for the three previous buildings on -site, whereas the total square footage of the previous buildings was just under 60,000 square feet. Mr. Lanker requested that the Planning Commission allow the project to be built as proposed because there is less traffic impact and the previous three buildings will be consolidated into one building which will include one major primary tenant and less square footage is proposed than what was on the site previously. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Lanker replied that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of the Floor Area Ratio not exceeding .5 times the buildable area of the site. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that there is a provision in the Municipal Code that would allow a developer to go up to 1.0 times the buildable area of • the site on the basis that the project would not generate more traffic than if it had of been built at a .5 times the buildable area for an office use. He -9- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES A �L1" 2 " February 5, 1987 ?mG ?N 9�9f AA Sy �� J-o� ff90 'G yin CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX further explained that there would be no justification to exceed the .5 times the buildable" area if the applicant is proposing to occupy the building at 100 percent office use unless the applicant applied for a variance and he added that there is no justification for approving a variance. Mr. Hewicker stated that the square footage that staff has given the applicant credit for is in the building that was burned down in 1985, and there is nothing in the Municipal Code that explains how long the building has to be gone before credit is stopped. In addition, he said that staff has been liberal in giving the applicant credit for the pre- existing building. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker replied that the actual gross square footage of the building is 57,912 square feet, but .5 times the buildable area of the site would allow a 55,000 square foot building. • In response to Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Lanker advised that the 57,912 square feet includes elevator shafts, etc,; however, the actual gross floor area would be 56,800 square feet. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Lanker replied that the 15 foot front yard setback is being complied with, and that the allowable 58,000 square feet is half of the entire parcel. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Lanker replied that the previous two two -story buildings on the front of the lot were for office use and the existing one -story building in the rear is an office building. Commissioner Merrill asked if National Education had other types of facilities? Mr. Lanker replied that the lot was classified as office and the facility was used as a headquarters building. Mr. Hewicker explained that the building was initially occupied as a regular office building and National Education occupied the building for a period of time. The public hearing was closed at this time. . Commissioner Winburn referred to the staff report's statement which states that "staff recommends that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance be amended to include -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o o� ;F¢G10 i+ February 5, 1987 y�G � 9N ��y` •oA y� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX provisions for the granting of development credits ", and requested the appropriate process. Mr. Hewicker recommended that the Planning Commission take action on the project and then the Planning Commission may give formal direction to staff. Motion x Motion was made to approve the Traffic Study, Request for Parcel Map Waiver, Modification for compact spaces Ayes x X C C C Absent x x and Related Environmental Document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", which would keep the building at .5 times buildable area or 55,000 square feet as stated in Condition No. 11 for the Waiver of the Parcel Map. Motion voted on, 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 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 based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. B. 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 proj- ect- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary- modified', or 'primary' street. -ll- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yo ;�FG�aA February 5, 1987 99 �yf�yf y s ` °� ;9�°�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect- generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2} hour peak periods on any leg of the critical intersections. C. Waiver of Parcel Map - FINDINGS: 1. That the entities proposing to use the site hold an estate in real property that is of sufficient length to guarantee that the lots which constitute the building site will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improve- ment to be placed on the site. 2. That this request complies with Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • 3. That all requirements of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code and Policies of the City of Newport Beach which would otherwise be accomplished by the combining of parcels can be met through the imposition of the conditions noted below. . CONDITIONS• 1. That the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney in conjunction with the waiver of the parcel map. 2. Should those portions of the subject property which are in separate leaseholds ever be held under a single lease, this waiver shall become null and void and the property owner shall obtain the approval of a resubdivision. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. -12- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 9�9�G0� y February 5, 1987 • �y �� C`�a�'yyo� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 S �^,n ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 6. That the intersection of the public streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 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 requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 7. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the the Parks, Beaches and Recre- ation Department and Public Works Department and that the one parkway tree be removed. S. That unused drive aprons be removed and replaced • with curb, gutter and sidewalk and that deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along the Birch Street frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. 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 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. 10. County Sanitation District Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 11. That the proposed project shall not exceed a Floor Area Ratio of 0.5 times the buildable area of the site. • -13- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL 0 MINUTES February 5, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH D. FINDINGS: INDEX 1. The proposed number of compact car spaces is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applications. 2. The proposed use of compact car spaces 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 and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That parking shall be provided at a. rate of one parking space for each 225 sq.ft. of net floor area, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the location of the compact parking spaces shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 3. That compact parking shall not exceed 218 of the required number of on -site parking spaces. In reference to Commissioner Winburn's previous remarks regarding provisions for the granting of development credits in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, she asked how many buildings have been vacated that would demand putting a sunset clause into the Traffic Phasing Ordinance? Mr. Hewicker and Mr. Webb described situations including buildings that have been torn down and buildings under construction that would affect the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mr. Hewicker replied that provisions would not . necessarily require an amendment to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance= however, provisions could be included as an amendment to Council Policy designed to assist staff in the implementation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yo �°� February 5, 1987 m�9 ANY C��9Z. fy�yti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Motion was made to direct staff to report back to the Ayes x x K K K Planning Commission on February 19, 1987 as to whether Absent x x or not it would be more appropriate to amend the Traffic Phasing Ordinance or Council Policy S -1. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * s x Use Permit No. 1852 (Discussion) Item No.4 Request to extend Use Permit No. 1852 that permitted UP1852 the establishment of Hassan's Cafe with on -sale beer and wine in the C -1 District. Set Public Hearing LOCATION: Portions of Lots 3 and 7 of Section 28, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino Meridian, located at 3325 Newport Boulevard, on the westerly side of Newport Boulevard between Finley Avenue and 32nd Street, in Central Newport. • ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Hassan Hassan, La Habra OWNERS: John P. and Maxine Myers, Los Angeles James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that since the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission, staff has received two checks from the applicant - the first check dated February 4, 1987, in the amount of $800.00 and a second check dated March 5, 1987, in the amount of $700.00 to be applied to what the applicant owes the City for in -lieu parking permits inasmuch as the applicant is in arrears. Mr. Hewicker explained that the balance owing the City prior to receiving the two checks is $5,785.31. Mr. Hewicker stated that the purpose of the staff report is to provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission to set this matter for a public hearing to be considered at a later date. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the applicant is on a payment schedule that was negotiated 16 last year, and that he has made intermittent payments on the payment schedule. She advised that including the two checks, the applicant is $1,671.76 behind in -15- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 5, 1987 M ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX • 0 the payment schedule. Ms. Korade further stated that the applicant requested that the item be continued for six months when he would be current. Mr. Nicholas Maloof appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Maloof stated that the applicant is requesting the opportunity to re- establish himself over the next 12 months by bringing the payment schedule current within two months and the remaining payments would be spread out over 10 months to the end of the year. Chairman Person emphasized that the applicant opened a delicatessen that was then converted into a restaurant without the City's knowledge, and the applicant was then allowed to maintain the restaurant_ use by purchasing in -lieu parking fees from the City and which he agreed to pay. Chairman Person pointed out that said condition has been required since the use permit was granted, and the applicant has chosen to ignore the City. Chairman Person stated that the Planning Commission could have recommended the revocation of the applicant's use permit for not paying the in -lieu fees and disregarding his responsibility to the City. In reference to Ms. Korade's previous statement, Chairman Person stated that the applicant should be informed that he is requesting that the applicant be current in two months, not six months as the applicant requested, and also that the applicant appear before the Planning Commission in person if the Planning Commission should choose to have a public hearing regarding this matter. Commissioner Kurlander pointed out that the in -lieu parking fees will be due for a new assessment in January, 1988, that he will be looking at the matter very critically, and that he would like to be able to speak to the applicant directly. In response to a request by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Maloof replied that the City Attorney's office requested $1,159.00 from the applicant to make him current through October, 1986. The applicant post -dated a check for $700.00 with the idea of making a payment on April 5, 1987, to bring himself current, and then he would be on a monthly payment schedule to December 5, 1987. Ms. Korade explained that the applicant is $1,671.76 in arrears as of March 5, 1987, taking the two aforementioned checks into consideration. She said that the City Attorney's office has worked out a prior -16- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yA pA February 5, 1987 A • y�yy py��yyf`�ily�yy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9yF� ROLL CALL INDEX payment schedule which ends December 31, 1987, where he has to pay $503.90 per month. She explained that to bring himself current as of April 1, 1987, he would need to pay $2,175.66 and then each month thereafter until the end of the calendar year. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeooy, Ms. Korade and Mr. Hewicker replied that the 1988 in -lieu parking fees will be $1,200.00, or $150.00 per permit times eight spaces. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Korade replied that the subject item could be set for a public hearing for both revocation and to extend the use permit. Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicant's use permit came before the Modification Committee for extension in accordance with the direction of the Planning Commission, and the Modification Committee took action to refer the question of the extension to the Planning Commission. He said that his interpretation would be that as long as the question of extension is still not settled, the use permit is still in effect. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Hewicker replied that if the Planning Commission requested a public hearing, staff would send out a public notice indicating that the Planning Commission is considering an extension of the current use permit or revocation of said use permit. Motion x Motion was made to set Use Permit No. 1852 for extension or revocation for the April 9, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. He reasoned that the applicant should be current with the payment schedule established by the City Attorney's office. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy., Mr. Hewicker replied that if the Planning Commission made a decision to revoke the use permit, that decision would be a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council would take final action. He stated that the effective date of the revocation would be in May or June, 1987. In response to Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker replied that a payment schedule will be presented to the Planning • Commission on April 9, 1987. Chairman Person stated that he will support the motion. He emphasized that the applicant attend the April 9, -17- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y a � 0600 February 5, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 1987, public hearing, and that he be in compliance at that time because the Planning Commission is not looking favorably at the situation. Motion voted on to set Use Permit No. 1852 for Ayes x x K C x extension or revocation at the April 9, 1987, Planning Absent 34 x Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. k k Amendment No. 646 (Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, adding Chapter 20.64, the Santa A646 — Ana Heights Specific Area Plan; amending Districting Maps No. 34, 42, 61, and 67; and the acceptance of an Continued environmental document. to 2 -19 -87 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the County of Orange adopted a Land Use Plan for Santa Ana Heights in February, 1985, and adopted the Specific Plan in October, 1986. Mr. Hewicker further stated that the City of Newport Beach amended the General Plan to conform with the County Land Use designation in October, 1986, and the City is currently proposing a Specific Area Plan designed to establish what the zoning criteria would be in the event that the subject area would be annexed into the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Hewicker advised that the next step that the City of Newport Beach would take would be the annexation of the property if it was ultimately the desire of the City and the desire of the property owners in Santa Ana Heights. Mr. Hewicker introduced Mr. Ken Delano, Executive Assistant to the City Manager, who will be handling the annexation procedures for the City in the event that the City undertakes the annexation, and Mr. Rich Adler from the County of Orange Environmental Agency. Mr. Craig Bluell, Senior Planner, referred to the staff report and requested the following corrections: page 5 of the staff report - that No. 1 be corrected from "8 • foot right -of -way to 80 foot right -of -way "; that an Open Space Designation is to be included in the Specific Plan - that the open space area would be along -18- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 5, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX the property line of the residential property at the southeast corner of the equestrian area and would not be on some of the private property as designated on the map; page 197 of Specific Plan - additional language should be added to 20.64.065, line 4: "in addition to those improvements, the following are public improvements needed within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. "; Exhibit 1 Map - Acacia Drive should not be shown with a curve but should be a vertical street where the street intersects Mesa Drive; Exhibit 3 - building height should be 35 feet and not 37 feet. Mr. Bluell stated that staff attended the public meetings and the public hearings conducted by the County during their Specific Plan process, staff combined the public input and the final County Specific Plan, and as a result, drafted the proposed Specific Plan. Mr. Bluell addressed the City's changes to the County's Specific Plan as follows: That the reduction of height by 2 feet - from 37 feet to 35 feet was justified because there is sufficient height to allow for the construction of the buildings that would be built under a .5 floor area ratio, and the City would be more consistent with the E1R 35 foot height limit. An alternate realignment for Mesa Drive and a connection was provided in that location because circulation is needed for the area taking into consideration the increase in square footage in the Business Park area. He pointed out that no precise alignments were done, that the designation only indicates that a connection is proposed and that it is more desirable than a cul -de -sac as shown in the County Specific Plan. That there would be an alley at the north end of Cypress Street just north of the cul -de -sac. He said that this is essential to allow for the commercial traffic to circulate back from Cypress Street to Birch Street, and north and south along Bristol Street. • The building design guidelines that were put into the County's Specific Plan have been eliminated from the City's Plan because the City feels that the architects -19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 5, 1987 a•G 9N %y9� .a ti� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9Zi^,9 ROLL CALL INDEX and developers should have more latitude in providing a variety of building types; that there would be improved development in the area and the development standards will provide for the reduction of the building mass and establish the setbacks. The landscaping would help to blend the architectural designs that have been proposed for the area; the guidelines are intended to give direction rather than give specific standards to the developer. That the City is requesting wider paved areas for the streets to provide better circulation; and adding a buffer area in the "Professional, Administrative" zone in the northeast corner that was not provided for in the County Specific Plan since the County did not consider the R -1 area on the east side of Santa Ana Heights. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jim Belt, property owner at the northeast corner of Cypress Street and Orchard Street, appeared . before the Plannng Commission. Mr. Belt indicated that the majority of the people in Santa Ana Heights feel that to rezone parcels in Santa Ana Heights to R -1 Equestrian would be a mistake because a house cannot be built in the area with the idea in mind that a profit can be made by selling the property. He emphasized that the area is impacted with noise from John Wayne Airport; that feasibility studies have further indicated that the average difference between the list price and the selling price of property in the area is $40,000.00; and that homes would need to sell for $300,000.00 to allow a builder to construct new homes in Santa Ana Heights and make a reasonable profit. Mr. Belt commented that the average price for homes adjacent to his property sell for $110,000.00. Mr. Belt displayed a chart that indicated that the majority of the residents request that the area north of Orchard Street and Cypress Street be zoned C -1. Chairman Person stated that the Planning Commission is not looking at land uses which was implemented by the City in September and October, 1986, but to implement the land use designation. Mr. Jack Mullen, 2031 Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission as Chairman of the committee that originally requested annexation into Newport Beach. Mr. Mullen referred to a petition that was signed by -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o 9L��G10 February 5, 1987 a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 71t percent of the registered voters requesting annexation but who also requested annexation at the land use designation that there was at that time. Mr. Mullen referred to area maps that he distributed to the Planning Commission, and he pointed out that the major portion of Birch Street and all of Cypress Street are out of the current "65 CNEL" contours of the John Wayne Airport. As Chairman of the Redevelopment Committee, Mr. Mullen stated that the circulation that the County of Orange approved was part of a total negotiating package that mitigated some of the circulation problems, and the cul -de -sac on Birch Street and the realignment of Mesa Drive and Acacia Drive were partly - to deter traffic through the residential area. He contended that if Mesa Drive between Acacia Street and Birch Street is converted to a four -lane highway, and if Birch Street becomes four lanes, that he would be looking at between 12,000 to 20,000 automobile trips per day in front of his home on Mesa Drive, and that he would be unable to take his horse across the road. Mr. Mullen concluded that he would not want the area to be annexed if that was one of the conditions. He recommended that circulation be part of the zoning because if the circulation changes, then there would be many residents on Birch Street, who have planned to live there for many years, who have requested the cul -de -sac so that their children can be out in the street without worrying about automobile traffic. Mr. Mullen stated that there is no provision in the redevelopment agency for improvement funds, and that the funds coming in have to be paid back later so the funds would have to come out of developer fees. - Mr. John O'Flynn, 20331 Cypress Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in favor of annexation. Mr. O'Flynn provided the following comments regarding the proposed plan: referring to Exhibit 8, Typical Section through Cypress Street at Mesa Drive, and the breakdown of the 60 foot useage, he pointed out that 40 feet is given to the automobiles, 12 feet to the equestrian trail which he believed could be less, he questioned the 3 foot useage that is not designated for any purpose, be questioned the need for a 4 foot landscape area extending beyond the 60 foot right -of -way; and that the hazardous high voltage overhead wires go underground. • In reference to the proposed Specific Plan, Permitted Animals, Mr. O'Flynn stated his concerns regarding the -21- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 5, 1987 G� N09Cy �nF`y CITY OF NEWPORT ®EACH ROLL CALL INDEX setback area of large animals from existing residences on Cypress Street. He requested that the staff review what should be a desirable minimum setback of large animals from residences. In response to Mr. O'Flynn's concern, Mr. Bluell referred to the Specific Plan which states that all covered structures housing animals from ultimate street right -of -way would have a front setback of 50 feet; a side setback if that right -of -way was on the side - 20 feet; setback from the property line abutting Equestrian and Commercial Stable overlay zones or an alley as a 5 foot setback - 5 feet. He pointed out that from all other property lines that would be other R -1 property lines or Professional, Administrative, or Commercial property lines, there would be a side and rear setback of 25 feet. Mr. Bluell stated that these setback standards are the same standards that are currently in force under the County's Specific Plan and that the setbacks received a great deal of study under that program. Mr. Bluell further added that the exercise areas and all other • structures have a set of setbacks. In response to a question posed by Mr. O'Flynn regarding a future Newport Beach Post Office, Mr. Bluell replied that the Santa Ana Heights area would ultimately receive postal service from the Camelback Post Office in Newport Beach, and that said service can occur whether the Santa Ana Heights area is annexed or not, and he explained that the Post Office makes their decision about how to service areas based on the economy of providing service. Mr. Harvey Shaw, 2391 Azure Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission as a Santa Ana Heights property owner for 40 years. Mr. Shaw emphatically stated that he has been a member of an ad -hoc committee which has been meeting with the County of Orange for several years regarding the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, and that said committee satisfactorily worked a specific plan out with the County of Orange; however, he said that the City of Newport Beach did not contact the ad hoc committee during the time that the City was making amendments to the County's Specific Plan to request advise from the residents regarding what would work in the area. Mr. Shaw recommended that Birch Street and Orchard Street not be widened because recent • projects have been constructed too close to the streets; that the City take the Santa Ana Heights area -22- COMMISSIONERS G Np 110\0100V�� � `y ' CITY OF NEWPQFiT BEACH t^� MINUTES February 5, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX as it is; and that he approves of the County's circulation program. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding specific suggestions to the Specific Plan, Mr. Shaw replied that the subject Specific Plan has too many amendments to what was already "hashed out ", and that the County's Specific Plan has become obsolete. Chairman Person requested that Mr. Shaw spell out specific objections to the Specific Plan and turn those suggestions into staff so that staff may comment on them at the continued public hearing. Mr. Roger Summers, property owner at 20292 Birch Street and 20352 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission as a member of the Santa Ana Heights ad hoc committee for the Specific Plan. Mr. Summers stated his concerns to the proposed Specific Plan as follows: in reference to "all development in the Business Park District should be of an architectural design that is reflective of "early" or "rural" California ", Mr. Summers requested some type of explanation of the wording so that there will not be a street with the same kind of buildings; and that he agrees with the circulation proposal. In reference to the building site coverage of 35 percent maximum, Mr. Summers commented that instead of a current 60 foot right -of -way, that the City is requesting an 80 foot right -of -way, then the City is stating that he will have to either condemn or he will have to deed to the City, 10 feet of his property. He asked if he figures the 35 percent building maximum before or after he gives the 10 feet. He questioned if the 10 feet would be condemned, would he be paid for it, and he stated that what usually happens is that whoever develops the property deeds the property as part of the permit process which would affect a fair amount of square footage of that 35 percent or .5. He asked for a clarification if whether it is figured before he gives the 10 percent or before the 35 percent or after. He requested that the 35 percent be before he gives it. Mr. Summers referred to the Specific Plan stating that roof structures and screening shall not be visible from three hundred feet of the residential district, and he asked from what point is the reference made, from the second floor of a two story structure or on the ground? Mr. Bluell replied that staff would have to add -23- COMMISSIONERS 9 11 6y t o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9y�9 MINUTES February 5, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX additional wording to specify from the first or second floor. Mr. Hewicker questioned if by looking out a second story window of a residential structure to a one story building of a commercial structure, if a great deal could be done to shield the mechanical equipment on the roof. Mr. Summers commented that he cannot build higher than 30 feet to 35 feet, that he would be allowed an additional 6 feet for mechanical equipment as long as it is shielded, wherein he asked from the back side of the property between the residential and the business park, where do you draw your eye of sight from? The Planning Commission recessed at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Ms. Patricia Cox, 2612 Mesa Drive and a resident of Santa Ana Heights for 36 years, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Mrs. Cox in reference to a colored display of the proposed area, Mr. Bluell explained that the green area • adjacent to her property would be an open space area. Ms. Cox stated that if the City proceeds with the Specific Plan as proposed there would be more commercial area than residential area, and she maintained that the City wants Santa Ana Heights to remain residential. She stated her concern regarding the proposed four lane highway from Irvine Boulevard to Birch Street, that it would be a real disaster if University Drive would go through and many homes lost. She contended that many of the changes that have taken place have been fostered by the minority of the residents in Santa Ana Heights and the Board of Supervisors have listened to them because the more commercial they can get the more they can expand Sohn Wayne Airport. She suggested an entrance at Acacia Street which would designate an entrance to a residential equestrian area that the Planning Commission of Orange County presented to the Board of Supervisors, and which the Board of Supervisors pushed aside, and she further stated that the County of Orange Planning Commission commented that this suggestion was a must if Santa Ana Heights would be maintained. In reference to Exhibit 8C distributed to the Planning Commission and staff, Mrs. Cox recommended that the circulation plan be implemented so that the residential . area on Mesa Drive at Acacia Street to Birch Street could be saved. -24- COMMISSIONERS 99o��9yfyy ` o9 ;4y 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 5, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Loraine Warren, 20412 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. She said that she has lived under the "65 CNEL" for many years and that is the reason the area should go commercial. Ms. Warren stated that she supports the City's Circulation Plan because if it would not be implemented, then it would be possible that University Drive would have to be built. Ms. Mary Davis, 1971 Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the Circulation Plan maintaining that the proposed Business Park and the residential area would benefit. She said that if a direct unobstructed route is not provided, traffic will seek outlets through the Residential Equestrian area. Ms. Davis opined that the City made a mistake in the R -1 zoning between Acacia Street and Birch Street. She said that there are five property owners in that block and they all, except for Mr. Mullen, agree that they would like to be zoned as Business Park and have so • stated before the County several times. Mr. Jim Manning, 8 Windsor, Newport Beach, and property owner of one acre at the corner of Orchard Street and Birch Street, referred to the right -of -ways that are being requested by the proposed circulation plan and to the existing buildings that are presently constructed. Mr. Manning stated that there is a proposal into the County to build an office complex on the said property. Mr. Manning referred to Exhibit 5 of the staff report, Typical Section, through Birch Street at Mesa Drive, and opined that the 80 foot right -of -way is not needed, to work the right -of -way from the 64 feet to the back of curb then the lanes needed would be provided, design some kind of a drainary, 5 foot of parkway, and another 5 foot of sidewalk which will not be in the public right -of -way. He concluded that the suggestions would minimize the problems of having to go back and condemn property in dealing with the parking that the people have on their properties, and the City could dictate the walkways to the property owners. Mr. Frank Schneider, 20292 Cypress Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in favor of the Specific Plan and annexation. He suggested that the' proposed Birch Street and the area north of Birch Street should . be Business Park and not residential, and that gates could be installed into Mesa Drive at that point. -25- COMMISSIONERS A . BGZ� Z�ZgC`gZ fy�ZS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9Zt^,A MINUTES February 5, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Paul Hagness, representing The Koll Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hagness explained that The Koll Company owns property at the corner of Bristol Street and Cypress Street. Mr. Hagness stated that a primary concern of The Koll Company is a proposed alley that runs parallel to Bristol Street from Cypress Street to Birch Street. He provided the following theories: (1) That the inclusion of the alley which is approximately 200 feet from the Bristol Street intersection would create additional traffic on Bristol Street which would clearly create a hazard condition with respect to a left turn from the alley to Bristol Street which is the real purpose of the inclusion of the alley. He opined that the idea of the alley is to permit circulation back into the tract, and the inclusion of the alley 200 feet from the intersection of Birch Street and Bristol Street is what the City would not like to have. (2) The real purpose for the inclusion of the alley is for the purpose of solving a circulation problem primarily with respect to the businesses that are located on the approximate • corner of Cypress Street and Bristol Street on the opposite side of the street from the Koll property. He said that most of the people who use the services of the shopping center at Cypress Street and Bristol Street who come up from the Santa Ana Heights area, park on Cypress Street, and will walk into the shopping center area. He contended that the alley will not eliminate that problem, because the problem that exists in the shopping center is a parking problem, and the alley would only contribute to the parking problem by including an alley that is going to be 20 feet wide where people are going to try and park because the parking lot is full. Mr. Hagness maintained that the circulation problem could be solved by the people from Santa Ana Heights walking across from the cul -de -sac on Cypress Street to the shopping center. (3) Mr. Hagness referred to the cost of "hamburger" alley which is going to be 600 feet long by 20 feet wide, stated that the property in the area is selling between $15.00 to $20.00 per square foot, totalling 120,000 square feet of property.. He commented that the taxpayer will pay for "hamburger" alley at an approximate cost of $500,000.00, and he questioned the intelligence of spending that kind of money for a purpose that he does not think will resolve the problem. Mr. Hagness stated that the property that backs up to the Koll property that faces onto Birch Street where the proposed alley would fall, is a lot -26- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 5, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH yyF,� ROLL CALL INDEX that is 66 feet wide and 300 feet long, and if 20 feet would be eliminated from that lot there would be a lot that is only 46 feet wide and 300 feet long. In conclusion, Mr. Hagness stated that the City should give serious consideration to eliminating the alley, the same consideration that the County did when they eliminated the alley. Ms. Gloria Terry, 2061 Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated her concerns regarding the proposed "dotted" realignment at the corner of Mesa Drive and Birch Street that would include her property. She said that she supports the annexation and would like to be rezoned Business Park; however, she commented that she had a concern about the intent of her property. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Bluell replied that this is not a specific designation as to where Birch Street would be realigned. Mr. Bluell explained that the commitment that the City has made in the Specific Plan is that there will be a precise road alignment study no later • than six months after annexation. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Bluell advised that Mrs. Terry would be able to meet with the City to provide her input into the alignment study. Mrs. Terry confirmed that she would like to be informed as to what the intent will be for the realignment, and she advised that if there would be a great portion of land setback on Mesa Drive for the realignment there would be nothing left of her lot. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy in reference to the placement of the dots on the proposed realignment map, Mrs. Terry replied that all of her house would be taken which sits back on the lot. Mr. Hewicker explained that it is inconclusive as to how much property would be taken or how much would be left until staff does a realignment study. Mrs. Terry described where her parcel of land is and the occupancy of the parcels adjacent to her property. Ms.'Sue Cathcart, 20321 Cypress Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, and complimented staff on their cooperation with the recommendations proposed by the County. In reference to the Specific Plan's comprehensive drainage plan and implementation program that would include funding by an assessment district -27- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 5, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX and /or developer, contribution, Mrs. Cathcart recommended that the funding be by developer contribution and not by the residents because she said the developer should take responsibility for the drainage. In reference to a letter addressed to staff from McDonald's dated January 28, 1987, stating "the current plan for a cul -de -sac on Cypress Street just south of Bristol Street, will have a serious impact on customer travel paths to and from our center and will have a very negative impact on our business ", Mrs. Cathcart rebutted that she is not sympathetic to McDonald's because they should not have to depend upon the residents for the restaurant to have a successful business, and she pointed out that she has trash from McDonald's tossed onto her property. Mrs. Cathcart stated that an important goal of the Specific Plan is a statement in the staff. report that "the community has requested that the internal circulation system be restructured to discourage business traffic through the residential areas ". She further stated that she agrees with the staff's recommendation of "early California" architecture. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mrs. Cathcart replied that she worries about alleys because of crime. Mrs. Gretchen Miller, 21082 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission objecting to the annexation of Santa Ana Heights into Newport Beach. Mrs. Martha Durkee, 20311 Cypress Street, appeared before the Planning Commission as Acting President of the Back Bay Community Association. She stated that the Association approves of the proposed alley; however, their concern is the traffic that may be generated onto Cypress Street from Mesa Drive to Bristol Street. Mr. Bluell suggested that if the City should annex Santa Ana Heights, then the Traffic Engineer could take a look at the traffic circulation in that area to find a solution to discourage the traffic. Mrs. Durkee recommended that the alternate circulation route as suggested in EIR 508A, No. 2, be taken into consideration. Mrs. Durkee complimented Mr. Bluell for listening to what the residents wanted, and as a result, there was a negotiated compromise. • Mrs. Violet Ramella, 20151 Cypress Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed Specific Plan. Mrs. Ramella stated that the traffic and parking on Cypress Street, Monday through -28- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 5, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., have become increasingly worse and that crossing the street to her mailbox and backing out of her driveway have become hazardous. She said that the cul -de -sac is needed on Cypress Street and that she approves of "hamburger" alley. Mrs. Ramella emphasized that she disagreed with Mr. Belt's aforementioned statements regarding the Specific Plan. Commissioner Kurlander emphasized that the City staff has been involved with the Santa Ana Height's Specific Plan while the County of Orange was developing the Specific Plan during the past five years. Commissioner Pomeroy asked if by not dedicating all of the areas of the streets to the City but to maintain the sidewalk area and the landscape area as private property, would that request be feasible or unrealistic? Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that the suggestion would be possible. He commented that normally it would be desirable to have a public sidewalk in a public area so that there would be control over the use. He pointed out that the property owner would normally like it to be in the public right -of -way so that if somebody tripped and fell, it would be the City's responsibility. He said that an easement arrangement could be worked out as suggested. Commissioner Pomeroy maintained that there could be an easement on the property, that the sidewalk alone would be public, and the liability would belong not to the property owner but to the City. Commissioner Merrill asked for a clarification of the location of the alley. Mr. Bluell replied that no precise alignment has been established for the alley, and that staff would need to make further studies. Chairman Person referred to the proposed alley and the left turn across Bristol Street, 200 feet from the intersection, and he advised that he had not looked at that particular segment of the Plan. Additionally, Chairman Person referred to the south section of the property that is along Mesa Drive that appears to be of irregular shape, and asked for the rationale of the continuing designation. Chairman Person agreed with Mr. Hewicker's confirmation that reference was being made of the location of the equestrian estates and the likelihood that they could be continued in the event that Birch Street and Mesa Drive would be realigned. -29- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 5, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Merrill stated that the ingress /egress out of McDonald's at Cypress Street could be as much of a problem as an alley within 200 feet of the intersection. Motion x Motion was made to continue Amendment No. 646, Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, to the February 19, 1987, Ayes Absent x x x x x x x Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Discussion Items Request to review the incorporation of recent revisions Item No.l of the Brown Act into the Planning Commission's Rules Revisions of Procedure. to Rules of INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Procedure n x Motion was made to approve and adopt the amendments to at x x x x x the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedures in x accordance with the recent revisions in the Brown Act. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x * x Item No.2 Discussion of possible Planning Commission study Study session items. Sessions INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The Planning Commission discussed and concluded that no study sessions need to be scheduled at this time. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business Planning Director Hewicker discussed the Planning Commission Institute that will be held in Sacramento between March 11, 1987 and March 13, 1987 with the P.C., Institute Commissioners. • ADJOURNMENT:: 10:17 p.m. : x Adjournment PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -30-