Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/19814MISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. n Date: February 19, 1981 y City of Newport Beach MINUTES ML CALL 11 1 Jill, INDEX Present X X X Wx Abse nt mmissioner Balalis was absent. * * * EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: .James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney * * * STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary * * * i APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Mr. Dave Dmohowski,. representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission and re- ferred to Condition No. 4 on Page 18 and Conditio No. 6 on Page 19, of the January 22, 1981 Plan- ning Commission Minutes. He requested that Condition No. 4 be revised to reflect the square footage of the already allowed phasing plan and added that this revision would then be consistent with Condition No. 6. He stated that this was an oversite on their part and that a change of this nature was only minor. Chairman Haidinger stated.that the minutes are accurate as written and suggested that Mr. Dmohowski meet with the staff to determine how a change of this nature should be initiated. Motion X Motion was made.to approve the minutes of the Ayes X X x X Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 22 Abstain X 1981 as written, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 5, 1981, was con- tinued for two weeks, in that the Commission has not had sufficient time for their review. * * * -1- x d • February 19, 1981 Of .. Proposed Specific Area Plan for Corona del MINUTES INDEX r IItem #1 Planning Director Hewicker presented background information on this item. He then referred to Draft No. 2 of the propo.sed regulations prepared by the Business Property Association and the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce and the following discussion ensued: Planning Director Hewicker stated that this section contains no use which would be subject to securing a use permit, i.e., restaurants, service stations and animal hospitals, which can generally be made to be compatible with a busi- ness or retail community. He stated that this section is left wide open as to the uses per- mitted. He stated that the original concern of this proposed plan was to retain the neighborhood flavor of the Corona del Mar area. Commissioner Allen stated that an incentive system should be explored regarding the permitted uses. She stated that in this way, service / commercial uses may be encouraged, without man- dating that a specific use be required in a specific building. Commissioner Thomas suggested that a density trade -off be considered as an incentive. He stated that in this way, a floating credit system can be utilized to transfer these credits to other uses. Commissioner.Beek stated that there is a real possibility that the Corona del Mar commercial strip will .serve the over -flow in office space for Newpo.rt Center, rather than serving the resi- dents of the community. He stated that he would like to see these uses confined to neighborhood, service /commercial uses. He suggested that the • 11111111 -2 PROPOSED SPECIFIC AREA PLAN FOR CORONAI del MAR. Tor Add! - tional Study. February 19, 1981 w m $ i5 6i D w City of Newport Beach MINUTES RW CALL I 11 I Jill I INDEX word, "neighborhood" be included in this proposed plan. He also suggested that restricting the size of any one use, may be an appropriate con- sideration. D. Floor Area Limit - Paae 4 Planning Director Hewicker stated that the pro- posed 2 times the buildable area of the site, is the floor area ratio which currently exists in the area. However, he stated that between .5 and 1 .times the buildable area has been approved for other specific area plans and discretionary projects, which is more than enough to construct a .building on a site and provide the required parking. He stated that a substantial amount of square footage will be built using the 2 times the buildable area, which will also cause in- creased parking and circulation problems. In.response to a question posed by .Commissioner Beek,.Planning Director Hewicker stated that more • area is devoted to parking than actual office space. He staged that the physical space to park the car, including the necessary aisle width and the design of the lot, requires approximately 300 to 400 square feet per space. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the figure should be obtained for the amount of square foot - age ondthe commercial strip presently. He stated that the figures could then be determined i.f all of the lots were to be built at 2 times the buildable area and the additional areas which would be.requried for parking. Commissioner Beek stated that it would also be helpful to determine the efficiency of parking on single, double or triple lots. E. Yards. 1. Front Yards - Page 4 In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Com- missioner Thomas stated that this section refers to businesses located on side streets, such as the Pirates Inn restaurant facility. Planning Director Hewicker • I' ( V I I I -3- COMMISSIONERS1 February 19, 1981 MINUTES x CD �pr ren Beach INDEX explained the intent that the.commercial develop- melts should observe the same.front yard require- ments as the adjoining R -2 property. He stated that there may be situations in the City, wherein a property is partially in a commercial zone and partially in a residential zone. Commissioner Beek referred to the sentence, "Pro - vision of landscaping features in the design of the structure is encouraged". He stated that this sentence should be deleted in that this pro - vision only states that it will encourage land- scaping, but does not place any restrictions on the developer to do so. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that landscaping is very important to the area. Commissioner Beek stated that landscaping should be required, rather than only encouraged. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the original draft included landscaping requirements, but-was met with • opposition. 3. Rear Yard., b..- Page 5 Commissioner Beek stated that the fifth line of this section should include the requirements of Section E -3, not just Section E. Commissioner Beek stated that requiring a mini- mum 10 foot setback which will then be utilized for parking is not a good policy. He stated that the same policy should be followed as that of the residential districts. .Planning Director Hewicker stated that the 10 foot alley setback is permitted under the existing regulations. He stated that the staff would be concerned if the. intent is to use the 10 foot alley setback on private property for parking. Refuse Area - Pa Planning Director Hewicker stated that the refuse should be screened by a specified minimum height. IIII�III -4 • February 19, 1981 Of Beach H. Off- Street Parking - Page 5 & 6 Planning Director Hewicker stated that the pro- posed off- street parking requirements are sub- stantially different from that of the City. In most cases, the proposed requirements are less restrictive than that of the City. He stated that most of the uses listed on Page 6 would normally require a use permit. AAtNUTES Chairman Haidinger requested that the differences between the proposed standards and the current standards be identified in the next staff report. Commissioner Thomas suggested that the uses be grouped into three or four categories along with the appropriate parking requirements. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that the Corona del Mar Elementary School should be considered as a parking alternative, when and if the school site is abandoned. Commissioner Allen stated that the parking in- ventory taken by the Corona del Mar property owners should be included in the next staff re- port, in the form of a map. 5. Location - Paae 7 & 8 Planning Director Hewicker stated that this section does not address providing parking on an adjacent lot within the commercial zone. Planning Director Hewicker also stated that the development standards of a parking lot in a resi- dential district, including wall height, land- scaping and illumination are currently handled with a use permit. He stated that the use permit procedure allows for input from the adjoining residential users of the property. He stated that this proposed plan would permit residentiall zoned properties to be used for commercial parkin lots without obtaining a use permit, but subject to certain development standards as indicated. Commissioner.Beek stated that this section will need further clarification. -5- INDEX February l9, 1981 MINUTES w City of Newport Beach INDEX kFM Planning Director Hewicker stated that this sec- tion refers to a parking structure, or a surface parking facility that may be built at a subse- quent date where property owners can contribute to the cost of its establishment by paying an in lieu fee. He stated that more details need to be worked out as to its implementation. C.. Enlargement.- Page 10 Planning Director Hewicker stated that this sec- tion has been taken from the existing Zoning Ordinance, but should also include language as to the intensification of the use so that the parking requirement may be increased up to 10 percent. Commissioner Thomas referred to Page 9, Waiver of Requirements, Item a),and stated that this is normally handled under the variance procedure. •' He stated that there would be no point in widen- ing this waiver option. Commissioner Beek referred to the first paragraph on Page 8 and stated that the letter should be changed from c) to d). He referred to Page 6, the Hotel /Motel category, and requested clarifi- cation on this issue. He referred to Page 9, Joint Use and stated that the recorded agreement for joint parking should specify the hours during which each use is to operate. He referred to Page 12, Floor Area and stated that this seems: to apply only to the computation of floor area for parking purposes. He suggested that this be modified to read, "The total rentable area in- cluding exterior walls." He stated that Section H -1 for Off - Street Parking should include, "Floor area shall not include halls, decks,.restrooms, and service areas ". Planning Director Hewicker stated that staff is concerned with this item also. He stated that the existing definitions on gross and net floor area need to'be considered. -6- 3 n �p CS 7 i N 7C N February 19, 1981 Of Beach MINUTES � RWL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Commissioner Thomas suggested, that a range of options be provided, in particular for permitted uses and parking requirements. Chairman Haidinger referred this proposed plan back to the staff for additional study and input Requests of The Irvine Company and the Marriott Hotel concerning proposed amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan on various properties in Newport Center. Planning Director Hewicker stated that staff has recommended that `this item be set for public hearing on March 5, 1981. The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the. Commission. Mr. Dmohowski requested. that the Commission set the hearing for this item on March 19, 1981. He stated that The Irvine Company is in the process of preparing additional information relating to fiscal impacts and transportation management. He also stated that Mr. Wes Pringle, the Traffic Engineer, could also be present at the March 19th meeting. Commissioner Beek asked staff if the City is also preparing a fiscal impact analysis for Newport Center. Staff concurred. Commissioner Beek stated that he is concerned that the EIR address the question of residential/ commercial imbalances in Newport Beach and the ratio of the number of people employed in the City as compared to the number who reside here. Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that the fiscal analysis report is separ- ate from the EIR pursuant to CEQA guidelines and will follow the City's model for such reports. In addition, he stated that the report will • IIIIIIII Item ;11110177 ENT X February 19, 1981 Of Beach MINUTES respond to the Commission's concerns, including those expressed by Commissioner Beek. Commissioner Allen suggested that.this item be .. set as the first agenda item for the March 19th meeting. Motion Motion was made to initiate the p.roposed General All Ayes X X X Plan Amendment No. 80 -3 and set for public hearin Absent * as the first item on the Agenda for March 19, 1981 at 7:30 p.m., which MOTION CARRIED. * * * Request to consider.a Traffic Study for a pro- posed 18,104 sq. ft. t office building. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 78, and a portion of Lot 79, Tract No. 706, located at 3500 -3510 Irvine Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Irvine Avenue between Bristol Street and Orchard Drive, southerly of the John Wayne Airport. ZONE: C -1 -H and A -P -H APPLICANT: Richard H. Dodd and Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: David Magilavy, Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker stated that the appli- cant has.requested. that this item be withdrawn. Planning Director Hewicker referred to the infor- mation submitted by the City Traffic Engineer and stated that the evidence indicates that the ICU in the morning is.substantially greater than the ICU in the evening. However, he stated that the peak hour is substantially shorter in the morning than in the evening. He stated that copies of the Traffic Engineering Assumptions and the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance have been attached to the report. -8- INDEX Item #3 TRAFFIC STUDY Withdrawn by the Applicant � 11111111 February 19, 1981 9 o x n I, I S City of Newport Beach MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker stated that a direc- tion from the City Council would be needed in order, to change these procedures. He also stated that a change in these procedures would be diffi- cult to implement because all of the committed projects evaluated to date, have utilized the p.m. peak hours. He stated that in the majority of the cases, the p.m. hour is the critical peak hour. Commissioner Thomas stated that MacArthur Boule- vard is becoming 4 potential problem during the morning peak hours. Commissioner.Beek asked if.it would be. possible for the City Traffic Engineer to log the traffic :in the a.m. and the p.m. hours when the routine traffic inventory is taken at the intersections. Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the ICU calculations are taken by hand. He stated that the machines take the 24 -hour counts which would be difficult to separate into the a.m. and p.m. hours and also.does not take into account any of the turning movements. Request to permita modification to the Newport Place Development Plan so as to reduce the on- site parking requirement from one parking space per 225 sq. ft. of net floor area to one parking space per 250 sq. ft. of net floor area, and to permit the. use of compact car parking spaces in conjunction with the expansion of the Far West Savings and Loan Office complex on the property. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 62 -37 (Resubdivision No. 458), located at 4001 MacArthur Boulevard on the northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Bowsprit Drive, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Far West Savings and Loan Association Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant INDEX Item #4 MODIFICA- TION NO. 2663 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY February 19, 1981 MINUTES 9 0!nm MO U) X City of Newport Beach CALL I I I I I I I INDEX P1'anning Director Hewicker presented the.back ground information.on this request. He stated that the parking could be provided at one parking space per 225 sq. ft., but that a parking struc- ture would be needed, as opposed to surface parking. He stated that evidence has been sub - mitted.which indicates that the actual need for parking in this particular building, is less than the one.parking space per 225 sq. ft. required by the Code. He added that in the event that Far West Savings and Loan would not be occupying the building, the traffic needs and patterns may be changed by another use. Chairman Haidinger asked who determines what buildings are selected for use in the Parking Demand Study. Staff responded that the Traffic Engineer for the applicant would make these selections. Chairman Haidinger asked if the ratio utilized in the Parking Demand Study would be occupied i spaces divided by square footage. Planning Dir- ector Hewicker stated that the demand ratio should also include any factors which .would allow for absent employees or unoccupied office. space. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Bill Darnell, the Traffic Consultant for the project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Darnell stated that 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. is the best time to determine vehicle parking. demand. He stated that the basic intent of the information is to show that the actual demand ratio is less than the one parking space per 225 or.250 sq. ft. He .stated that representative samples of buildings were picked for this study. He stated that Mondays and Wednesdays are used in determining.the parking demand. He also stated that information was obtained as to approximate occupancy of the office buildings surveyed. Mr. Robert Borders, architect representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of this modification request.. -10- COMMISSIONERS1 February 19, 1981 MINUTES M INDEX Motion JXJJJ Motion was made to- approve Modification No. 2633 Ayes X X X with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" Noes X of the staff report as follows, which MOTION Absent * CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That an adequate number of parking spaces are being provided in conjunction with the proposed expansion of the Savings and Loan offices.. 2. That the proposed percentage of compact spaces is reasonable for the total number of parking spaces on the site. 3. That the requests for a reduction in the re- quired parking standard and the provision of compact parking spaces will not be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of such persons residing • or working in the neighborhood of such pro - posed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and furthe that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 4. That the City Traffic Engineer has reviewed and approved the proposed parking lot design. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved parking lot plan. 2. That there shall be.a minimum of one parking space for each 250 sq. ft. of net floor area. 3. That the City Traffic Engineer review and approve the parking layout and plan prior to the issuance of building permits. * * * The planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. * * * -11- -Ip w _ D a 0 m m3'� Oi _ � `a On w • February 19, 1981 z F993 M Request to establish a single parcel of land for office condominium-purposes where one parcel presently exists. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map -3 -25 (Resubdivision 215), located at 2222 University Drive on the northeasterly side of University Drive between Irvine Avenue and the Orange County Flood Control Channel in the west Upper Back Bay area. ZONE: A -P APPLICANT: James F. Deane, Palm Desert OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Hunsaker and Associates, Costa Mesa MINUTES Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, referred to Exhibit "A ", Condition No. 12 and stated that this condition should include the wording, "northerly one -half of University Drive ". The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Dick Hogan, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Hogan stated that there will be no change in the.intensity, development or the parking of this project. He stated that there is an in- creasing desire of the public to purchase office condominiums, rather than leasing. Mr. Hogan referred to Exhibit "A ", Condition No. 11 and stated that:this condition requires a 12 -inch water main. He stated that this is an increase from the presently approved requirement of an 8 -inch water main. He stated that a chang of this nature would involve a substantial amoun of money. He stated that this is not a fair approach, as there will be no additional increas in the intensity of the development. Mr. Hogan referred to Condition No. 12 and state that if University Drive is not to be completed its full length at this particular location, the City is not justified in requiring.the -12- INDEX Item #5 RESUB- DIVISION NO. 678 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY February 19, 1981 MINUTES = City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX applicant to contribute money to the circulation system,.which will then make improvements at another location, not related to this project. He stated that if this requirement is to be made, he requested that the money be deposited in an interest bearing trust fund for the City or the property owner, depending on the outcome of the decision for University Drive. Mr. Webb stated that the cost differential re- ferred to by Mr. Hogan for the water main would amount to approximately $5,000 to $7,000. He added that the 12 -inch line is planned in the overall water circulation system for the City and that a 12 -inch water main has presently been constructed down to the property line of this project. In response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Mr. Webb stated that a 12 -inch water main will be constructed, the issue is whether • the applicant or the City will pay the cost. Mr. Webb referred to -Condition No. 12 and stated that Resubdivision No. 215 approved in 1965, re- quired the improvements of University Drive across the entire frontage of the property. He. stated that Condition No. 12 allows the applicant to construct the improvements to the front drive- way and to contribute to the City's Circulation and Transportation Fund for the construction and improvements of University Drive by the City. He stated that University Drive is on the.Cir- culation Element as a primary arterial highway. He stated that until the General Plan is amended, it is the responsibility of the adjoining pro- perty owners to construct the improvements across their frontage. In response to question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Mr. Webb stated that these improve- ments would cost $40,000 to $70,000. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if the previously approved and certified EIR is to be utilized, it would be appropriate I I II V I I I -13- COMMISSIONERSI February 19, 1981 jig o D ( W w d City of Newaort Beach MINUTES INDEX to add the conditions as set forth in the previo staff report with regard to the environmental documentation. He also suggested that an addi- tional finding be made that there has been no change in the project, nor the circumstances pursuant to which it is being undertaken that would warrant preparation of additional or new environmental documentation. Commissioner Beek asked legal counsel if the State Subdivision Map Act refers only.to resi- dential condominiums in that a denial can not be based merely on the fact that it is a condo- minium project. Mr. Burnham concurred and stated that the Map Act would not apply to this project. Commissioner Thomas expressed his concern that University Drive is being built prior to envir- onmental documentation, which is not in con- formance with the decisions of the Local Coastal . Plan. He stated that the decision as to the future of University Drive needs to be made. Mr. Webb stated that the section of roadway of University Drive which is being constructed is necessary in order to serve the property. Com- missioner Thomas stated that access is needed to the property, but that the 50 feet of right -of= way seems to be excessive if University.Drive is not extended. Motion X Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 678 subject to the .findings and conditions of Ex- hibit "A" with the following changes: deletion of Condition No. 10; modifying Condition No. 11 to include the water main and exclude the 185 feet for curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement and street lights; the deletion of Condition No. 12; that the City Traffic Engineer prepare language which would provide for proper and adequate access to serve the development; and, the addi- tional conditions of the environmental documen- tation as suggested by the Assistant City Attorn I III IIII -14 February 19, 1981 MINUTES ao ' City of Newport Beach CALL INDEX Mr. Webb stated that Condition No. 11 contains the same requirements for improvements that were constructed across the frontage of the YMCA, which provides for one 12 foot lane in each direction and a parking lane. Mr. Hogan stated that Condition No. 1.1 only deals with the 185 feet to the access point, not with the balance of University Drive. Amendment Amendment to the motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 678 subject to the.findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ".of the staff re- port, including the revision to Condition No. 12 as suggested by the Assistant City Engineer, . and the additional conditions of the environmenta documentation as suggested by the Assistant City Attorney. Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Webb to explain the effect of deleting Condition No. 10. Mr. Webb • stated that the 50 foot right -of -way of Condition No. , 10 would.have to be dedicated in order for Condition No. 11 to be accomplished. Commissioner Beek stated that the motion by . Commissioner Thomas contained no provision for dedication and therefore the water main could not be constructed. Planning Director Hewicker stated that perhaps Commissioner Thomas'intent would be the dedication of 50 feet of right -of- way along the westerly 185 feet of the property. He stated that this would provide 50 feet of dedication up to the access point,. but no dedi- cation beyond that point. Commissioner Thomas concurred. Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Hogan if they are agreeable to including the additional environ- mental mitigation measures as suggested by the Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Hogan stated that this would be agreeable. Commissioner Allen stated that she would not be voting in favor of the amendment to the motion. She stated that at the time the City decides tc • 111111111 -15- February 19, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX build University Drive, the dedication will not be difficult to obtain from this particular office building. Mr. Webb disagreed and stated that in the event the owner decides not to dedicate the right -of -way, the City will have to purchase it. Ayes Noes Absent • Ayes Noes Absent Chairman Haidinger's amendment to the motion was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. Commissioner Thomas modified his original motion as follows: Condition No. 10 - That approximatel 50 feet of right -of -way be dedicated over the westerly 185 feet of University Drive; Condition No. 11 to remain the same as found in Exhibit "A" of the staff report; Condition No. 12 is deleted; and, the additional conditions of the environ- mental documentation as suggested by the Assistant City Attorney. Commissioner Thomas modified motion was now voted on as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: I. 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. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. That there has been no change in the pro- ject, nor the circumstances, pursuant to which it is being undertaken that would warrant preparation of additional or new environmental documentation. • 11111111 -16- COMMISSIONERS1 February 19, 1981 MINUTES 9 0 x m M Beach 2XV11 That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and the Public Works Department that sewer facilities will be available for the project at the time of occupancy. 7. That a master plan of sewer, water and storm drain facilities be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department prior to re- cording of the parcel map. That the location of fire hydrants be re- viewed and approved by the Fire Department and the Public Works Department. That the on -site vehicular circulation systems be subject to further review by the Public Works Department. • 11111111 -17- CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the original requirement for construc- tion of a cul -de -sac at the end of Anniversar Lane be deleted. (This requirement was originally established as a condition of approval of Resubdivision No. 215). 4. That all vehicular access rights to Universit Drive be released and relinquished to the City, except at one location, to be approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That a.10 -foot easement be provided for pedestrian and bicycle trail purposes between • the termination of Anniversary Lane and University Drive along the easterly boundary of the parcel. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and the Public Works Department that sewer facilities will be available for the project at the time of occupancy. 7. That a master plan of sewer, water and storm drain facilities be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department prior to re- cording of the parcel map. That the location of fire hydrants be re- viewed and approved by the Fire Department and the Public Works Department. That the on -site vehicular circulation systems be subject to further review by the Public Works Department. • 11111111 -17- COMMISSIONERS February 19, 1981 MINUTES �x City of . Newport Beach PWCALLI 111 111 INDEX 10. That approximately 50 feet of right -of -way be dedicated to the public over t-he westerly 185 feet of.University Drive. 11. That the northerly half of University Drive be improved for approxiamtely 185 feet with curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement and street lights; and that a 12 -inch water main be constructed by the developer in University Drive. That the street, storm drain and water main improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 12. That an improved drainage facility be pro- vided between the end of the new University Drive improvements and the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. I I( I I I I 113. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided, if it is • desired.to obtain a building permit or record the parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 14. That a 40- foot -wide construction and slope easement be dedicated, by separate document; to the City. The easement location shall be adjacent and northerly of the unimproved portion of the proposed 50 -foot University Drive dedication. 15. That the project be designed to meet the State standards for interior noise level, based on noise levels as generated by both John Wayne Airport and by the projected future traffic volumes on University Drive. 16. The number and location of compact parking spaces shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 17. The percentage of compact spaces shall not exceed 25%. • 11111111 -18- February 19, 1981 Pon Beach MINUTES RUL CALL I III J i l I INDEX PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS OF THE EIR: . 18. That a landscape plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Said plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of organo- phosphates and pesticide and shall place a heavy emphasis on the use of native vegetation and planting materials of a drought - resistant nature. Prior to the occupancy of the buildings a licensed landscape architect shall certify that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan. 19s That should any resources be uncovered durin construction, that a qualified archaeologist or palenotol.ogist evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and thatall work on -the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K -5 and K -6. • 20. That prior to the:issuance of a building permit the applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Building Department and the Public Works Department that sewer faci.lities.will be available for the pro - ject at the time of occupancy. 21. That the project be designed to meet the State Standards for interior noise level 22. That the proposed structures be designed in such a manner that they do not relfect glare, emit electronic interference or pro- duce smoke so as to endanger aircraft operations at the John Wayne Airport. 23. That prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant demonstrate.to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that the guidelines of the Airport Land Use Commission has been followed in the design of the project. 24. That building access shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance . of the building permits. _19- February 19, 1981 MINUTES X 3 City of Newport Beach INDEX 25. That development of the site will be sub- ject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building Department. Surface and subsurface drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Building Department and the Public Works Department.. 26. That the grading plan shall be developed in accordance with Mitigation Measures 1 throug 7, 9, 10 and 11 asset forth on pages 11 and 12 of the Draft EIR. 27. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted with the grading permit applica- ti.on and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 28. That prior to the issuance of building per- mits all remaining applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 215 shall be met. • 29. That all necessary improvements be made in the extension of University Drive (to the parking area) which will insure that no. erosion is caused by runoff from the paved surface into the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. 30. That the project incorporate a pollution separation device (grease trap) on the proposed drain from the parking lot to the Santa Ana - Dehhi Channel. .31. That the applicant provide for the weekly cleaning of the parking lot by vacuum sweeping. 32. That the applicant provide for a regular maintenance program for the pollution separation device(s). 33. That the vegetative buffer between the Santa Ana - Dehli Channel and the project be retained so as to.stabilize the channel and prevent erosion. • I I I I I I(� -20- COMMISSIONERS February 19, 1981 MINUTES a 0 51 0 C I City of Newport Beach L CALL r7i I I I I INDEX 34. That the applicant investigate the potential reduction of wastes as provided for by the Quiet Communities Act of 1978. 35. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding. the John .Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or subleases for space in the project and shall be included in any Cov- enants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure. Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: 1. The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide.adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; • 2. When an alternate air facility is available, a.complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; 3. The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansion at the John Wayne Airport;. 4.. Lessee, his heirs, successors and assign will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the .John Wayne Airport." 36. That the applicant consult.with the Orange County Environmental .Management Agency as to the need for stabilization of the Santa Ana -Delhi flood control channel prior to the issuance of grading permit. 37. That the site plan as contained in the EIR is approved in concept. 38. That landscaped.berms be provided and main- • tained so parked cars will not be visible from Back Bay Drive. -21- 4MISSIONERS February 19, 1981 a 5.0 Citv of Newport Beach MINUTES IWL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Request to approve a Final Map to create one parcel of land so as to permit the construction of a residential condominium project on the property. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 818, First Addition to the Newport Mesa Tract, located on the northwester- ly side of Superior Avenue, south- westerly.of Placentia Avenue in the West Newport Triangle. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: George J..Heltzer Co. OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: James J. Brennan, Inc., Orange Planning Director Hewicker stated that the staff has recommended that this item be removed from • the calendar, until such time as a meeting with the subdivider can be arranged. 0 The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Jim Brennan, the Engineer for.the applicant, appeared before the Commissi.on. Mr. Brennan referred to Page 7 of the staff report, Item No. 17, which states that the property is located in a natural drainage area. He stated that at the time the p.lans were prepared for this project, the property was under the juris- diction of the County. He stated that they are providing an on -site storm drain system for the water that drains adjacent and to the rear of the property and are improving the catch basin system in Superior Avenue. He stated that the County has reviewed these plans, along with thei additional calculations and have signed and ap- proved these plans... He stated that the site has been graded and that they were in the process of obtaining bids for the storm drain system when the property was annexed by the City of Newport Beach. He stated that the Assistant City Engineer has a copy of a memo from the County regarding the maintenance of these drain- -22- Item #6 FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 11018 Continued to March . 5, 1981 February 19, 1981 MINUTES 9 0_ MS, City of Newport Beach INDEX age facilities. He stated that based on the County's elevation studies for this project, the site has been graded accordingly.. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that there are two elevations involved on this project; that of the floor pad for the actual living area and that of the garage spaces. He stated that the garage spaces are in a sump area and in the event of.a 100 -year storm, the-garages Would be underwater 4 to 6 feet. He stated that the Building Department of the City considers the garage slabs as part of the building pad. Therefore, the.City's interpretation of the County's condition is that both the living pad and the garage pad must not be in a flooded area. He stated that there are drainage problems in this entire area. In response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Planning Director Hewicker stated 16 1111 that the drainage problem is the major concern 11:11onthis item. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Attorney General's opinion was predicated upon full compliance with all of the conditions of the tentative map. Planning Dir- ector Hewicker stated that it is the County's condition requiring the use of the 100 -year flood. Mr. Burnham stated that the intent of the County is that the building remain above water. Mr. Brennan stated.that they were not aware of these problems with the City until a week ago. Commissioner Beek stated that it is apparent that there are technical problems on.this.project relating to the drainage conditions. Motion Motion was made to continue this item to the All Ayes X X X Planning Commission Meeting of March.5, 1981, Absent which MOTION. CARRIED. • -23- �d a_ RI 7 g N x w February 19, 1981 W MINUTES I RWL CALL I III Jill I INDEX Request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted the establishment of a restaurant facility with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment so as to per- mit the construction of additional dining and storage areas on the property. The proposal also includes the paying of an annual The to the City for the required parking-spaces in a nearby Municipal parking lot in -lieu of pro - viding parking on -site. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 116 -27 (Resubdivision No. 573), located at 100 Main Street on the northeast- erly corner of Main Street and East Ocean Front on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Thirtieth Street Architects Newport Beach. Commi.ssioner Allen asked if the applicant is aware that if the in -lieu parking system is re- viewed by the City Council, the fees may be increased substantially. Planning Director Hewicker stated that he did not know if the applicant was aware of this. Commissioner Beek asked legal counsel if it would be appropriate to add a condition requiring the applicant to send the City a letter stating that he realizes that the in -lieu fees are set yearly by the City Council and may be increased by any amount at any time. Mr. Burnham suggested that the condition simply indicate that the applicant be required to pay in -lieu fees in the amount established by the City on an annual basis. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Hovik Abramiam, representing the Studio Cafe, appeared before the Commission. • 11111111 -24 Item #7 USE PERMIT NO. 1476 AMEN 1D) APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY Harry l • I I I I I LEASEHOLDER: HovikAbramiams Bal boa s boa Commi.ssioner Allen asked if the applicant is aware that if the in -lieu parking system is re- viewed by the City Council, the fees may be increased substantially. Planning Director Hewicker stated that he did not know if the applicant was aware of this. Commissioner Beek asked legal counsel if it would be appropriate to add a condition requiring the applicant to send the City a letter stating that he realizes that the in -lieu fees are set yearly by the City Council and may be increased by any amount at any time. Mr. Burnham suggested that the condition simply indicate that the applicant be required to pay in -lieu fees in the amount established by the City on an annual basis. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Hovik Abramiam, representing the Studio Cafe, appeared before the Commission. • 11111111 -24 Item #7 USE PERMIT NO. 1476 AMEN 1D) APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY February 19, 1981 Me l l MINUTES Mr. Abramiam stated that they are only proposing a minor amendment to the existing use permit and requested approval of.this application. Motion Motion.was.made to approve Use Permit No. 1476, ..(Amended) subject to the findings and conditions of the staff report in Exhibit "A ". Amendment X Amendment to the motion was made that the follow• ing condition be added, "That.the applicant will be.required to purchase from the City of Newport Beach, three additional in -lieu parking spaces at an annual rate to be determined by the City Council, from year to year for the duration of the use ." Acceptance • All Ayes Absent • Commissioner McLaughlin accepted the amendment to her motion. . Chairman Haidinger expressed his concerns re- garding the continual selling of in -lieu parking spaces, which does not .solve the problem. He stated that it must be recognized that more parking spaces are needed, not just the collecti of fees. Amended Motion by Commissioner McLaughlin for approval of Use Permit No,:. 1476:,.(Amended) was now voted'on as.follows; which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: That the proposed expansion and remodeling of the subject restaurant facility is con - sistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Draft Local Coastal Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not comtemplate any.problems as a result of the proposed expansion. -25- INDEX February 19, 1981 w City of Newport Beach MINUTES � RW CALL I III Jill I INDEX L • The approval of Use Permit No. 1476 (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 neighbor- hood or. the general welfare of the City, inasmuch as the operation of the existing restaurant use has not been detrimental to the neighborhood and the proposed expansion is minor in nature. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall.be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations. 2. That prior to.the issuance of building per - mits, additional "in- lieu" parking spaces shall be purchased from the City pursuant to Section 12.44.125 of the Municipal Code, on an annual basis. The total number of annual "in -lieu" parking spaces required for the subject expanded restaurant facility shall be 37 spaces. 3. That all other applicable conditions of approval of the restaurant use on the pro - perty shall be maintained. 4. That the applicant will be required to pur- chase from.the City of Newport Beach, three additional in -lieu parking spaces at an annual rate to be determined by the City Council, from year.to year for the duration of the use. -26- COMMISSIONERS February 19, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach MR CALL INDEX Request to amend a previously approved use Item #8 permit which allowed the expansion of the Balboa Bay Racquet.Club in the Unclassified District. Said Use permit amendment is to allow additional USE.PERMIT floor area to be added to an existing clubhouse.. NO. 1492 AMENDED} LOCATION: Parcel Nos..l, 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 92 -13 (Resubdivision No. 492) and a portion of Block 93 APPROVED of Irvine's Subdivision, located CONDI- at 1602 East Coast Highway, on TIONALLY the northerly side of East Coast Highway between Newport Center Drive and Clubhouse Drive, adjacent to the Irvine Coast Country Club. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: International Bay Clubs, Newport.Beac OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach • Chairman Haidinger stated that he is a member of the Balboa Bay.Racquet Club and asked legal counsel if he could participate in this item. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Chairman Haidinger would be able to parti- cipate and cast a vote on this item. . The public hearing opened in.connection with this item.and Mr..Scott Hightower, representing the Balboa Bay Club, appeared before the Commis - sion and requested approval of this application. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. All Ayes X YX X X X 1492 (Amended) with the following findings and Absent conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and will be compatible with surrounding land uses., n i.J -27- �F = SD 19. W 5. pm� f N x N February 19, 1981 on .t Beach MINUTES RWCALLI 111 1111 1INDEX F__1 LJ C1 J 2. Adequate o.ffstreet parking spaces and traffic circulation have been provided for the proposed development. 3. The required parking spaces on a separate lot is justifiable since the properties are in the same ownership and will be maintained as an offstreet parking lot for the duration of the tennis club facility on the adjacent property. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1492 (Amended) will n.ot, 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 and improvements in the neigh - borhood or the general welfare of the City. I CONDITIONS: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan. 2. That a minimum of one parking space per 250 sq. ft. of building gross floor area and three parking spaces per tennis court shall be provided on the parking lot site. The parking lot shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or other street surfacing material, of a permanent nature. An amended parking layout shall be approved by the Planning Department if the ingress and egress drive- ways to the site are widened at a later date. ME February 19, 1981 on Beach MINUTES R W CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX 3. That a landscape plan shall be approved by the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation. The landscaping.and.watering system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan and shall be properly maintained. 4. That all exterior signs shall be approved by the Planning Director. 5. That all.storage.of trash shall be shielded from view within the clubhouse or within an area enclosed by a wall not less than six feet in height. Request to permit the expansion of an existing Item #9 restaurant facility with on -sale alcoholic beverages (formerly Chuck's Steak House). A USE PERMIT modification to the Zoning Code is also re- quested since the proposed and existing devel- NO. 1977 opment encroaches into the required front yard. setback along West Coast Highway, The proposal also includes a modification from the required Continued parking standards so as to.allow tandem spaces. to March 5. 1981 LOCATION: A portion.of Lot A, Tract No. 919D located at 2332 West Coast Highway on the northerly side of West Coast. Highway, easterly of Tustin Avenue, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. • -29- WISSIONERS February 19., 1981 ' y N Gtv of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX 0 ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Dave Alderman, Malibu OWNER: Sadie M. S.tegmann -, Newport Beach The public hearing opened on connection with this item and Mr. Paul Shoop, representing the appli- cant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Shoop stated that this property has been in litigation since the spring of 1979. He stated that the applicant undertook to remodel and.up- grade the exterior and interior of the restau- rant when the dispute arose as to whether the applicant had the right to do this without the written permission of the owner. He stated that this matter is scheduled for a hearing by Superior Court on Monday, pending the action of the Planning Commission tonight. He stated that the restaurant has been vacant in the interim and has not been able to produce any revenue. In response to a question posed by Mr. Shoop, Mr. Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that Condition No. 10 refers to a commercial drive approach. He stated that the driveway needs to be widened and modified to accommodate the in- ternal.cir.culation. He also stated that sections of the sidewalk are.in a state of disrepair and need to be replaced. Mr.. Shoop referred to Condition Nos. 2, 12 and 13 and stated that only the property owner can grant these conditions for dedication,of right -of -way. He stated that the applicant is only the tenant of the building and can not grant the conditions of dedication. He stated that the applicant is obligated to pay rent on this property for the next 18 years and that the property owner is not concerned with the applicant's problems. • 1 1 1 1 1 1 I' -30- February 19, 1981 MINUTES "r City of Newport Beach � FMCALL1111 Jill IINDEX Mr. Shoop requested that the Commission delete the conditions of dedication as they create a great harship on the applicant. He stated that this proposal is requesting to remodel the existing restaurant which is in a state of dis- repair and will only be increasing the public use by approximately 12 percent. He also stated that the architect of the project is also present to answer any of the Commission's questions. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition No. 2 and stated that this condition refers to the expansion of the restaurant which proposes additional square footage of the.floor area. He stated that the proposed expansion should not be allowed in the 12 foot setback of the existing right -of -way line of West Coast Highway. Mr. Shoop asked for further clarification. Planning Director Hewicker stated -that there is an existi porch with posts,.which is not inside of the building and is not.enclosed. He stated that • Condition No. 2 suggests that walls.not be per- mitted to enclose this area. Mr. Shoop asked if they would have to remove this portion. Plannin Director Hewicker stated that walls could not, enclose the area within the 12 foot setback be -. cause part of the building would have to be re- moved when West Coast Highway is widened. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition No. 13 and stated that this condition refers to the existing building in its present configura- tion and provides for an agreement to be entered into between the applicant and the City which would allow for the structure, as it exists today, to remain within the proposed right -of- way subject to 120 days notice to remove, for a five year period. Mr. Shoop stated that they would be agreeable to such a condition, but that they are not the owner of the property and therefore can not deed or dedicate the property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Shoop stated that they can not agree. to remove someone else's building. He stated I I I I I I I 1 -31- February 19, 1981 MINUTES a W y City of Newport Beach INDEX that the applicant is only leasing the building, the owner owns the building and the property: He stated that the applicant will be paying for the remodelling costs of the building. He again stated that the applicant can not require the owner to make such dedication agreements. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there may be a problem with imposing conditions of dedication on a lessee. Mr. Shoop stated that if building permits are granted by the City, the applicant will renegotiate the lease with the owner. Mr. Burnham suggested that a continuance would be helpful for all parties concerned, including the City, to work on these problems. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the building in its present state, was built without the issuance.of building permits by-the City. • Commissioner Beek.stated that there will be considerable financial negotiations between the owner and the applicant when renegotiating the lease. He stated that this will provide a strong incentive for the property owner to respond favorably. He stated that the standard condi- tions as imposed by the City should be required. He stated that it will then be the responsibility of the applicant and the owner to deal with the requirements. Motion Y Motion was made to continue this item to the Ayes X V Planning Commission Meeting of March 5, 1981, Noes X X which MOTION CARRIED. Absent Request to consider a traffic study for a Item #10 proposed 37,122 sq. ft. ± office building. TRAFFIC STUDY AND APPROVED CONDI- -32- TIONALLY COMMISSIONERSI February 19, 1981 ii City of Newport Beach Request to permit the construction of a two - story office building and. related off - street parking areas on property located in the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area where a specific plan has not been adopted and which exceeds 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. It is also re- quested`that the proposed office building be allowed to exceed the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District. A modification to the Zoning Code is also re- quested inasmuch.as a portion of the required off- street parking spaces are proposed as compact parking spaces. LOCATION: Parcel No. 2, Parcel Map 152 7-28, 29 (Resubdivision No. 659) located at 2121 East Coast Highway on the southwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue,.in Corona del Mar. MINUTES • ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: West Coast Investment, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Agenda Item Nos. 1O.and 11 were heard concurrentl due to their relationship.. In response to a question posed by.Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the floor area ratio., in terms of the buildable area, would be 1.O1, when the first floor atrium and the second floor balcony are not included in the calculati Chairman Haidinger referred to Page 9 of the Initial Study and asked when the project re- lated improvements are scheduled for completion. Mr. Webb, Assistant City Engineer, explained to the Commission the current status of these road improvements. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Webb stated that the improvements to. be made to Avocado Avenue by the Irvine Company • will be constructed all at one time. -33- X04 Item #11 USE PERMIT NO. 1978 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY February 19, 1981 Of Beach MINUTES M.» Chairman Haidinger referred to Page 3 of the staff report, the bottom line and stated that the floor area.ratio should read, 1.08 X the Buildable Area. Staff concurred. The public hearing opened in connection . with these items and Mr. Andrew Gianulias, representin the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. . Gianulias presented to the Commission an . artist's rendering of the project and described the proposed characteristics of the building. He requested approval of the traffic study and the use permit application. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Gianulias stated that the elevator for the building will. be hydraulic and will pro - trude approximately four.feet above the roof of the building. He stated that the highest point of the building, from the mechanical equipment, will be 37 feet and the lowest point will be at the front of the building which will be 27 feet • 6 inches. Mrs. Eleanor Forsyth, homeowner directly adjacen to the Bank of Newport property, appeared before the Commission. She stated that this use permit is closely related to Use Permit No. 1857 which was granted for the Bank of Newport. She ex- pressed her concerns with regard to the light intrusion and the welfare of the residents and property in the adjoining area. She stated that the lighting from the Bank of Newport shines throughout properties in the Irvine Terrace area. She added that the light is directed out - wardly and shines brilliantly thru her hedges and into her.living room. She stated that the provisions of the use permit should protect the welfare of the residents, but in fact do not. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Bank of Newport use permit does not relate to the use permit pending before the Commission this evening. He stated.that as near as he can dete mine,.the proposed office building will not be visible.to the Irvine Terrace. He stated that • 11111111 -34- February 19, 1981 9 C 2 City of Newport Beach MINUTES there i.s a lighting problem with the Bank of Newport facility and the City Council has directe the Bank of Newport to work with the residents to resolve these problems pertaining to the lighting of the parking lot and the sign. Commissioner Allen stated that she has discussed similar problems with the applicant, even though their parking will be underground, and stated that in the event that these items are approved, she will propose language which will address these concerns. iShe then suggested that if the problem with the Bank of Newport facility can not be resolved, that the Commission review the use permit accordingly. Planning Director. Hewicker stated that review of this item can be brought back before the Commission at the next meeting. Mrs. Forsyth stated that she is not opposed to the proposed project, but.did state that the • Commission should be made aware of the lighting III problems the residents are experiencing in this area. Mr. Webb referred to the traffic phasing plan improvements of the .Initial Study on Page 5, Table 9, relating to the MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road intersection. He stated that wording should be:added as follows, "Add a west bound turn lane on San Joaquin Hills Road at MacArthur Boulevard." He stated that this is needed to keep the intersection below the .9 criteria. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas, Planning Director Hewicker referred to the Retail and Service Commercial section of the Local Coastal Plan and stated that offices are permitted on the first floor when they directly serve the public. Commissioner Thomas stated that this proposed project does not.appear to function as a neighborhood /commercial use as s.pecified in the Corona del Mar Specific.Area Plan. • 11111111 -35- RAW February 19, 1981 MINUTES H y City of Newport Beach WI-CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek stated that this use permit will not offer any controls as to whether the offices located on the first floor will provide services directly to the public. He stated that it appears that this project will be serving outside businesses and regional office uses, and not the needs of the residents of Corona del Mar, which is a direct contrary to the intent of the Corona del Mar Specific Area. Plan. Chairman Haidinger asked staff at what location the Corona del Mar Specific Area Plan begins. Planning.Director Hewicker stated that the Plan begins at the Bank of Newport property and in- cludes this property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that Condition No. 2 relates to the State energy laws. Commissioner Allen stated that a condition needs • to be added which would preclude the interior illumination of the signing. She stated that externally illuminated signs are much less obtrusive. Mr. Gianulias concurred. Mr. Gianulias stated that they have tried to .. create an attractive building which will not preclude the retail and service commercial uses as discussed in.the Local Coastal Plan. He stated that many of the prospective tenants wil be service orientated tenants. Commissioner Allen referred to Finding No..4 and stated that this should be modified as to why the height variance is being delineated. She stated that this property contains unique fea- tures as to its slope. Mr. Burnham stated that he would draft the proper language to' modify this condition. Motion X Motion was made for approval of the Environmental Document.and Use Permit No. 1978 as recommended in Exhibit "A" of the staff report with the following changes: Finding No. 4 to be. modified relating to the height variance; include an . • additional finding that although the gross buildable area is 1.12, including the atrium -36- C MISSIONERS1 February 19, 1981 MINUTES ° a 3 , F y City of Newport Beach FW CALL INDEX which is not useable area, the buildable area 1s actually only 1,01; Condition No. 9 be modified that no features on the property including landscaping trees, flagpoles, sign poles, etc., exceed the roof top height; Condition No. 19 be modified to include, "shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with the building material% and, Condition No..25 be.modified to include that the nighttime lighting shall be shielded from sur- rounding properties. Amendment X Commissioner Thomas suggested an amendment to the motion that the reference to the Draft Local Coastal Plan be deleted from this approval, as this project is not located within the Local Coastal Plan itself. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the project is located within the Acceptanc Coastal Zone. Commissioner Allen stated that she would be accepting the amendment by deleting the reference to the Draft Local Coastal Plan from her motion. Afs X X Y Y Commissioner Allen's amended motion for approval Noes X of the Environmental Document and Use Permit No. Absent * 1978 was now voted on as follows, which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED: Environmental Document FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declara- tion have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been considered in the decisions on this project. 3. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient miti- gation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant • environmental impacts. -37- Februayy 19, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX use Permit No. 1978 FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate offstreet parking spaces will be provided for the proposed development. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact, providing the mitiga- tion measures set forth in the Initial Study -and Negative Declaration are incorporated in the final project design. 4. Because the property slopes towards the.rear of the proposed structure, and inasmuch as the roof top mechanical equipment is located at the rear of the structure, the visual impact of the structure is.such that the building does not appear to exceed the height limit. 5. The building height would result in more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 6. The building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing development, inasmuch as the pro- posed structure will be.lower than the Bank of Newport. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. 8. That the proposed percentage of compact spaces is reasonable for the total number of parking spaces on the site. • 11111111 -38- C MISSIONERSI February 19, 1981 MINUTES 3 ` Ur y I City of Newport Beach iWICALL III III INDEX That approval of Use Permit No. 1978 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of per - sons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 0. That although the gross buildable area of the project is 1.12, the actual. development is only 1.01 times the buildable area when the un- usable areas of the.proposed atrium and second floor.deck are deleted from the calculations. CONDITIONS: That development shall be in substantial con - formance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations. • I I I I I 2. The project shall be designed to conform to .Title 24, "Paragraph G, Division T -20, Chapter 2., Subchapter 4. 3. Should any.resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist. evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies K -6 and. K -7. 4. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed structure the circulation system improvement! described in the Initial Study shall have. been accomplished. 5. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving device: for project lavatories and other water - using facilities. 6. The final design of the project shall pro - vide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. • 11111111 -39- COMMISSIONERS 9 0_ �a February 19, 1981 . MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX 7. The applicants shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of. all paved areas and drives. 8. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. 9. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. No features on the property including the landscaping, trees, flagpoles, sign poles, etc., shall exceed the roof top height of the proposed office building. 10. The landscape plan shall include a main- tenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 11. The landscape plan shall place.heavy emphasi • on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 12. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 13. That the grading plan shall include a com- plete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potentia impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 14. The grading permit shall include a descrip- tion of haul routes, access points to the site and watering and sweeping program de- signed to minimize impacts of haul operation 15. An erosion and dust control plan, if re- quired, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. • 11111111 -40- February 19, 1981, MINUTES 9 OD 40 D I X ( W1 City of Newport Beach 16. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be reviewed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construc- tion activities. . 17. The project shall be so designed to eliminat light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. . 18. The following.disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the ,john Wayne Airport.should be in- cluded in any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: • a) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for busi- ness establishments which rely on such services; n LJ b). When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional. commercial air service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by.the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 19. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with the buildin material, and noise associated with said generators shall be attenuated to acceptable -41- INDEX w 7 '5 N 7C fN 7 February 19, 1981 m Beach levels in receptor areas. The latter shall MINUTES INDEX 25. That nightime lighting shall be limited to that necessary for security to be approved by the-Planning Department and that night- time lighting shall be shielded from sur- rounding properties. All permitted signs on the site shall only be externally illuminate 26. Interior circulation, parking, traffic control, sign locations and directional signs shall be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 27. A plan shall be submitted to the Traffic Engineer for approval that insures adequate control over the use of the proposed tan- dem parking spaces. I I I I I I I I -42- be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning Department. 20. That the Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 21. That the structure on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 22. The proposed project shall incorporate an internal securing system (i.e., security guards, alarms, access limits after hours) that shall be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments and approved by the Planning Department. 23. That the final design of on- site pedestrian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 24. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the site, the applicants shall demonstra e to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available. 25. That nightime lighting shall be limited to that necessary for security to be approved by the-Planning Department and that night- time lighting shall be shielded from sur- rounding properties. All permitted signs on the site shall only be externally illuminate 26. Interior circulation, parking, traffic control, sign locations and directional signs shall be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 27. A plan shall be submitted to the Traffic Engineer for approval that insures adequate control over the use of the proposed tan- dem parking spaces. I I I I I I I I -42- February 19, 1981 MINUTES 0 Ic City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX 28. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 29. All applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 659 shall be fulfilled. 30. That vehicular.access to the subject pro - perty be taken from Avocado Avenue. Motion Y Motion was made for approval of the Traffic All Ayes X X X Y Study with the added revision by the Assistant Absent * City Engineer that the Initial Study /Traffic Report on Page 9, Table 5 include the addition of a west bound turn lane on San Joaquin Hills Road at MacArthur Boulevard, which MOTION CARRIED as follows: . Traffic Study FINDINGS: That a Traffic Study on the proposed pro- ject has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S -1, and; That based on that Traffic Study, the pro- posed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any. "major ", "primary- modified ", or "primary" street. CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the occupancy of any building on this site the circulation system improve- ments described in.the Initial Study/ Traffic Report on Page 9, Table 5 shall be accomplished, including the addition of a west bound turn lane on San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. -43- COMMISSIONERS 1 February 19, 1981 MINUTES 9 0 = d 0 M Beach Request to consider an amendment to the Planned Community Development.standards for the Newport Place Planned Community, so as to permit the construction of a. seven (7) story.office building, where existing development standards presently limit building heights to six (6) stories on the site. The request also includes the acceptance of-an Environmental Document. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 120 -27 (Resubdivision No. 585) located at 1500 Quail Street on the south -, easterly corner of Westerly Place and Quail Street, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: WZMH Group, Inc., Irvine OWNER: Great West Life /Emkay Development, Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Ken Wells,,the architect re- presenting the applicant, appeared before the Commission and-requested approval of this amendment. Chairman Haidinger asked Mr. Wells how an extra" floor can be added wi.thout adding additional square.footage. Mr. Wells stated that in re- viewing the calculations for the six stories, it was determined that the maximum allowable square footage had.not been utilized. He stated that the building could be built to the maximum with an.additional story, or by increasing the footprint of the building. Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Wells to why they are proposing the additional rather than increasing the footprint. stated that the building envelope has been designed and they would not like t the entire building. • 11111 1 11 -44- explain story, Mr. Wells already redesign INDEX Item #12 AMENDMENT N0. 560 APPROVED X February 19, 1981 In response Haidinger, floor will feet. Beach to a question posed by Chairman Mr. Wells stated that the.seventh contain approximately 4,500 square In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that there is still square footage within Newport Place which can be built. Commissioner Allen asked if the 2,843 square feet of unused net floor area for the Enkay Site can be deleted. Planning Director Hewicker stated that this is an issue of the property .owner's development rights and that the Commission would.have to propose an amendment to the Planned Community Text in order to pursue this. MINUTES Motion X Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1064 , Ayes X X X approving Amendment No. 560, recommending same Noes to the City Council for adoption, with the folio Absent * ing revision to Page 8 of.the Newport Place Planned Community Text, which MOTION CARRIED: • "F. Building.Height (5) .(12) (15) Maximum building height shall not exceed six (6) stories above ground level, ex- cept for Site 3A which shall have a maximum building height of eight (8) stories above ground level, for Parcel No. 1 of Resubdivision No. 585 which shall have a maximum building height -of ten (10) stories above ground level, and for Parcel No. 2 of Resubdivisi.on No. 585 which shall ries above * * * ADDITIONAL.BUSINESS MacARTHUR BOU Mr. Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that CalTrans began advertising for on February 9, 1981 and that bids will be received and opene • on March 19, 1981. He stated that the contract should be awarded by mid -April and completed by January of 1982. -45- INDEX RESOLUTION N0. 1064 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS C MISSKDNERS1 February 19, 1981 MINUTES. 3 �D IK �— i 3 In 1 City of Newport Beach L CALL. INDEX Motion All Ayes Absent Moon All Ayes Absent i X d In -Lieu Parki.no Discussion Commissioner Thomas suggested that in -lieu parking be discussed at the next meeting. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Burnham stated that the City Attorney's Office has.not, as yet, drafted any possible. suggestions on in -lieu parking, Commissioner Allen suggested that the City of Laguna Beach be contacted.as to their procedure for parking meters; versus their semi - ann.ual parking permit system. Excused Absences Motion.was made for excused absences for Com missioners Allen; Cokas and McLaughlin from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 5, 1981, which.MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made for.an excused absence for Com - mission.er Cokas from the Planning.Commission... Meeting of March 19, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:05 p.m. George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach