Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/1987COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers � n TIME: 7:30 p.m. B 5.0 o ti DATE: February 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Present K K x x x K All of the Planning Commissioners were present. • • a EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney ,p ♦ x William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Craig Bluell, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x Minutes of February 5, 1987: Minutes of Motion was made to approve the February 5, 1987, 2 -5_87 A_ x x x x x Planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION Abstain 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. • x 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, February 13, 1987, in front of City Hall. • COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 19, 1987 G A 9N 99Z� .o Z� �y oI�Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3253 (Public Hearing) Item No.I Request to establish a restaurant with on -sale alcoho- UP3253 lic beverages on property located in the C -O -H Dis- trict. The proposal also includes a request to estab- Approved lish a valet parking service in conjunction with the proposed restaurant. LOCATION: Lot J -1, Tract No. 6015, located at 545 Newport Center Drive, on the southerly side of Newport Center Drive, between Santa Cruz Drive and Santa Rosa Drive, in Fashion Island. ZONE: C -0 -H APPLICANT: The Mallard Group, Corte Madera OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this • item, and since no one appeared before the Planning Commission to be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3253, subject All Ayes to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS - 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. That adequate parking exists to serve the project. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping, and parking lot illumination will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3253, under the • circumstances of this case, will not be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 4i a �1 6* p February 19, 1987 yd 9 9 9 A �S 9 9 py C 9y! yy ` � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX CONDITIONS 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations. 2. That one parking space shall be provided for each 40 sq.ft. of "net public area" in the proposed restaurant facility. 3. That final plans for valet parking shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Fire Department. 4. That no parking area in close proximity to the Fashion Island shops shall be roped off for valet parking. 5. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. • 6. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 7. That all trash areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened from view. 8. That a trash compactor shall be installed in the restaurant facility. 9. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 10. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 11. That no live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted unless an amendment to this use permit • is approved by the Planning Commission. -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y o 60 February 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9yc°9 ROLL CALL INDEX 12. That the development standards pertaining to walls, landscaping, and parking lot illumination shall be waived. 13. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 14. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. * * a A. Use Permit No. 3254 (Public Hearing) Item N0.2 • Request to permit the construction of a five unit UP3254 residential condominium development and related garages on property located in the R -3 (2178) District. TTM13013 AND Approved B. Tentative Map of Tract No. 13013 (Public Hearing) Request to subdivide .282 acres of land into a single lot for residential condominium purposes. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 819 and 919, First Addition, Newport Mesa Tract, located at 1425 Superior Avenue, on the north- westerly side of Superior Avenue between Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, in the West Newport Triangle area. ZONE: R -3 (2178) APPLICANT: A. J. Miller and Associates, Inc., Irvine • OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Van Dell and Associates, Inc., Irvine -4- COMMISSIONERS Nl'\"' �G?� C09 O typo ��9� �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 19, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Ronaldo Haug appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Haug stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of Tract Map 13013, Condition No. 4, regarding the fire hydrant; however, he stated that he would discuss his concern with the Fire Department. James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the proposed roof design and pointed out that the flat roof plane exceeds the 28 foot height limit; however, he explained that the applicant is decreasing the roof mass by cutting off the upper portion of each conforming sloping roof. Mr. Allan Beek appeared before the Planning Commission and complimented the proposed project because the development has met all of the City's requirements. Mr. Beek commented on his interpretation of the roof plane above the height limit. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3254 and All Ayes Tentative Map of Tract No. 13013, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3254 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. That the project complies with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of the approval. 3. That the project lot size conforms to the Zoning • Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. That the project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. -5- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 19, 1987 F99Z 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That adequate.on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium develop- ment. 6. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each • dwelling unit. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Superior Avenue and adjoin- ing properties. 4. That all conditions of approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 13013 shall be fulfilled. 5. That the proposed driveway shall be a minimum 24 feet wide at the front property line and may narrow to 20 feet between the front property line and Unit No. 1; however, the remaining width of the driveway shall not be less than 18 feet. 6. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in .Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Tentative Map of Tract No. 13013 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. -6- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 19, 1987 G�F� u'Ql9C`BL! �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. CONDITIONS: • 1. That a final map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a tract map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improve- ments. 4. That the applicant shall provide an on -site fire hydrant with a minimum 6 inch water main or provide a full fire sprinkler system for the proposed development, unless otherwise specified by the Fire Department. 5. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 6. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to • further review by the Traffic Engineer. -7- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �q A�+J�'FG Fpq February 19, 1987 A • mG�y oyNy�9!! O !'+L�sO `"99$ �A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That the intersection of the street and drive be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 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 approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. 8. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. 9. That the proposed drive approach be reconstructed per City Standard 166 -L. All work within the public right -of -way shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. • 10. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the final map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to he required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 11. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 12. That this tentative tract map shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. • -8- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y" `n ;ie GOO n February 19, 1987 � � -6 �$ 0`1 �`�°�" ;9y°� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9y�,e ROLL CALL INDEX Amendment No. 647 (Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to amend the Koll Center Newport Planned A647 Community Development Standards so as to establish auto Resolution detailing as a permitted use (for tenants only) in the No. 1156 parking structures located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Approved LOCATION: The Koll Center Newport Planned Community, bounded by MacArthur Boule- vard, Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Dave Katzen, Costa Mesa OWNER: Koll Center Newport, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dave Katzen, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. . In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding how the applicant will control the use of his business, Mr. Katzen explained that the area completely surrounding the proposed business is in Koll Center Newport, and that he will not advertise his business. James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented that the proposed business is not considered a free - standing commercial use, that the business will be within a parking structure, and that there will be no signs posted outside of the structure. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Katzen replied that all of the storage room contents will be water soluable, and that he is aware that the water drainage must enter the sewer system. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve and recommend Amendment No. All Ayes 647 (Resolution No. 1156), to the City Council. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. • -9- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES q q ; February 19, 1987 ��`°y ?9ycay CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX A. Use Permit No. 3249 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to permit the construction of a single family UP3249 dwelling in the R -1 District which exceeds the basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Denied District, and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. AND B. Variance No. 1139 (Public Hearing) V1139 Request to permit the construction of a single family Approved dwelling in the R -1 District which exceeds the basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District, and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. LOCATION: Lots 6 and 13, Block C -33, Corona del Mar, located at 2717 Shell Street, on the southwesterly side of Shell Street . between Fernleaf 'Avenue and Way Lane in China Cove. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANTS: Donna and Ernest Schroeder, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to a letter addressed to the Planning Commission, dated February 14, 1987, signed by residents in China Cove opposing the subject Variance, and a letter from Gary Hamilton, 2727 Ocean Boulevard, dated February 18, 1987, stating his opposition to the subject Variance. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff has prepared additional conditions in the event the Planning Commission would take action to approve said variance. Chairman Person referred to the addendum of the February 14, 1987, letter from the China Cove residents, and requested Mr. Hewicker to comment on their five recommended conditions of approval if the Planning Commission approved the variance request. • The residents recommended conditions of approval and Mr. Hewicker's comments are as follows: -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES N February 19, 1987 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 ROLL CALL INDEX 1. That strict . adherence to Coastal Commission "string line" be applied. "Planning Commission and City Council are not responsible for requiring strict adherence to the Coastal Commission stringline. Whatever Coastal Development Permit is ultimately obtained by the applicant, the staff, in reviewing the request for the building permit, would make sure that the applicants adhere to whatever requirements have been placed on them not only by the Coastal Commission but also by the Planning Commission and City Council. To the best of staff's knowledge, the proposed development adheres to the stringline established by the Coastal Commission, and if this variance is approved, staff is recommending a condition that requires compliance with the plans as approved." 2. That filling in (in the future) of any decks or open spaces be restricted. . "This would be automatically restricted by the condition that the Planning Commission would be approving the plan per the drawing, and to enclose the decks or balcony would be a violation of the variance and would require an amendment to said variance and a public hearing at a later date." 3. That all rock and demolition debris be removed by water and not by land over newly reconstructed and finished roads, where ingress and egress are dramatically limited. "The removal of rock and demolition debris by water may be questionable; it may work out that removing the debris by truck, depending upon the amount of rock, may be the best solution." Mr. Hewicker referred to staff's four recommended conditions and stated that staff is addressing these concerns very carefully. 4. Issuance of a bond to insure all liability for damages caused by construction and related activity in rock demolition. • "Staff addressed the concern in suggested Condition No. 19." 5. That roof heights on the street side not exceed City Code allowable... they not only obstruct -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES S;0� 0 February 19, 1987 �G�Oy ���9lC90 Lys' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX neighbors views but also those of the public as seen from the bluffs and Ocean Boulevard; "One of the elements of this variance is a request to exceed the height limit on the water side, and one of the justifications for doing that is that the Coastal Commission has imposed the stringline on the project, thus forcing the applicant to move the dwelling back on the lot." In reference to the recommended conditions submitted by staff to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing, Mr. Hewicker provided the following comments: 19. The applicant shall enter into an agreement and post a bond guaranteeing the repair of all damage to the public street system and /or utilities that might be caused by the construction process. "This condition addresses the public streets and public property in China Cove, particularly along • Shell Street." 20. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement and provide a policy of insurance guaranteeing the repair of all damage to private property, business interruption or other damage caused by the construction process. Said policy of insurance shall be in an amount to be determined by the Building Official, City Engineer and City Attorney. "This is a condition that is similar to a condition that was placed upon the excavation at the Fun Zone site approximately two years ago when there was concern regarding the sediment that might be created by the fact that they were digging a hole next to the bay. The purpose of the condition is to give some protection to the surrounding property owners." 21. The building contractor shall examine existing streets to ensure that trucks assigned to the project can negotiate required turns and • demonstrate such to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Building Departments. "There are a few other building projects going on in China Cove and there may be a question of -12- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o ; F �i February 19, 1987 y�G gyN�"��cfcAASy� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9yF� ROLL CALL INDEX public safety in respect to all of the construction projects going on simultaneously. The streets in China Cove are narrow, and staff feels that it would be a good idea to at least review that particular problem with the contractor to make sure that his delivery of building supplies by trucks can negotiate the tight turns on the streets in China Cove." 22. Any activity that would require partial - street closure, parking prohibition, heavy truck traffic, large or heavy loads or similar activities shall be approved by the Police Department and the Traffic Engineer. Full. street closure shall be prohibited at any time. "This condition is designed to make sure that the people on Shell Street bayward or beyond this site, will be able to maneuver free and clear of any construction activity. If there are deliveries of building materials to the site, of if there is • any placement of building materials in the street, they will be immediately removed and placed on the building site so that people can get by. If there would be any unusual large loads, they would be reviewed by the Police Department and Traffic Engineer." The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Jeannette stated that since the January 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, the structure has been redesigned in an effort to lessen the impact on -site. In response to the concerns of the residents in China Cove, Mr. Jeannette responded that approximately 35 square feet of living area that encroached over the stringline has been removed. He explained that the lower floor was lowered one foot, and that one and one -half feet were removed between the two floors, which reduced the height of the building to approximately 20.08 feet in height on the bayside portion of the lot. In summary, Mr. Jeannette stated • that the building was pushed back approximately 20 feet further from the water and lowered an average of four to five feet in height, reducing the building substantially to meet the City's requirements. -13- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In' reference to staff's recommended Condition Nos. 19, 20, 21, and 22, Mr. Jeannette concurred with those conditions. In response to the concerns of the residents of China Cove who addressed the aforementioned letter to the Planning Commission, dated February 14, 1987, Mr. Jeannette responded to their recommended conditions of approval as follows: 1. The applicant has met and intends to meet the stringline criteria. 2. Regarding enclosing of decks or open spaces, the applicants do not intend to construct beyond what they are requesting. 3. In reference to the rock and demolition debris, Mr. Jeannette replied that there may be a problem taking the debris Out toward the water because in a low tide situation, which is when most of the removing of the rock will be done, the boat would not be able to get anywhere near the site because of the sandy beach. He stated a concern about going out to the water because it may also harm some of the habitat. 5. Regarding the roof heights on the street side, Mr. Jeannette replied that the applicants are asking for the variance to the Code to exceed the basic height limit, and they feel that the roof heights on the Shell Street side do not interfere with the public views either down the street or from the parks on Ocean Boulevard. (Mr. Jeannette produced photographs to substantiate his statement). In response to correspondence previously submitted by Bright & Associates regarding the tidepools, Mr. Jeannette stated that he had submitted photographs to the Coastal Commission that did show that there are no tidepools on -site. He alleged that a tidepool is a reservoir of water where fish life is created and reproduced in some fashion, and the photographs show the sand when the tide is outs however, if there would be tidepools the applicants would contend with the conditions. Mr. Jeannette indicated that the Coastal Commission felt that the condition in reference to tidepools could be deleted from the Conditions of Approval. r I I I I I I 1 -14- 1 COMMISSIONERS mla� sn�y�9yC�y_ MINUTES February 19,.1987 " ` `�"�9 =��^9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Koppelman referred to the Shell Street side of the dwelling that exceeds the height limit, and she asked how the structure could be redesigned to meet the basic height limit? Mr. Jeannette replied that to remove approximately two and one -half feet from the dwelling, the structure would have a flat roof and seven foot high ceilings; however, there would not be a loss of square footage to the structure. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Jeannette discussed the modifications that were made to the structure and to specific rooms since the January 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the street elevation, Mr. Jeannette replied that that the structure remained exactly the same height on the Shell Street side in conjunction with the plans for Use Permit No. 3249 and Variance No. 1139. Mr. Gordon Hally, 2733 Shell Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the subject application. In reference to the aforementioned letter that several of the the Shell Street residents signed and submitted, Mr. Hally stated that all of the residents on Shell Street are opposed to the project, and if the variance is approved it will be in opposition to all of the neighbors. He added that all of the houses on the channel side of Shell Street are large homes on parcels of land that are about the same size as the four lots that make up the land of the current China House. The developers are proposing to put two large houses where typically in that neighborhood, there is one house, which means that in order to make a nice house they are asking to exceed some of the restrictions that are in the Code. They oppose the project because it does not fit the neighborhood as it already exists. Mr. Hally stated that the neighbors are concerned with the environment and that significant damage could occur. Mr. Hally referred to the environmental document and rebuked the "yes" check marks under "Earth ", and replied that there would be a significant change in the environment; under "Air ", Mr. Hally said that two large houses on one lot could cut off the air from the channel and up Shell Street; under "Water ", he said that if the structure goes out into the intertidal area there would be some changes; under "Animal Life ", he said that there are inconsistencies between those marks and the marks under "Earth ". -15- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Z o�+t�FGy °q February 19, 1987 m�9 99�yf 9y Cy�yy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Jim Beauchamp appeared before the Planning Commission in rebuttal to Mr. Hally's statement that two developers would be building two dwellings on the subject site, and Mr. Beauchamp said "that he just wanted to live there ". Mr. Tom Thomson, 2727 Shell Street, appeared before the Planning Commission stating his opposition to the project and emphasized his concerns as follows: the bedrock that goes under the entire community and especially his home; that the applicant should contact the Thomsons regarding liability insurance; that the Fun Zone sand cannot be compared to the China Cove bedrock; that rooms could be constructed within the garage area in the future; that two stringlines are in the plans submitted to the City; and the trucks on Shell Street during construction periods. Mr. Donald Bright, Bright & Associates, 1000 -A Ortega Way, Placentia, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Shell Street residents. As an environmental consultant, Mr. Bright responded to previous testimony as follows: that the stringline is not resolved, that there has been a disagreement between the two Coastal Commission hearings and they are presently being reviewed; that the City would, if the stringline or other conditions that may be imposed by the Coastal Commission, substantially modify the plans before the Planning Commission; that the tidepools have been there for many years inasmuch as he had used the tidepools for instruction purposes, and the tidepools have life that can be seen. Mr.. Bright recommended two conditions be applied to the subject variance if the variance is approved by the Planning Commission: 1. That no construction occur near or in the tide pool area during the spawning period of the animals and plants that are common there in order to minimize any impact on the organisms. Mr. Bright commented that the spawning period occurs in the spring. 2. That a specific rock removal plan be submitted to Nand approved by the Building Department. -16- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES q q ; Z Zo t, February 19, 1987 ZmG �09N�Z99C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9ZFZ ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Bright explained that the hydraulic mechanism for rock removal is not widely used in residential development and it needs to be done thoughtfully and very carefully. Also because of the structures in the immediate area to the project, the removal plan should be prepared in a way to minimize any problems and, thereby, not have any need for excessive insurance or problems between future and existing residences in the area. Chairman Person and Mr. Bright discussed the impact of the stringline on the previous applications submitted to the Planning Commission by the applicants in addition to the subject application, and the consideration of those applications by the Coastal Commission. In conclusion, Chairman Person stated that the Coastal Commission could conceivably impose new and different conditions or change conditions that they have already imposed, and the Planning Commission is not particularly bound to what the Coastal Commission • has done or might do. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker in reference to the recommended condition regarding construction within the tidepool area, Mr. Bright replied that his reference is to in and over the tidepool area during the spawning time. He alleged that the tide pool issue is tied to the stringline issue, and that is to be resolved by the Coastal Commission. Mr. Bright, Commissioner Pomeroy, and Commissioner Merrill discussed the concepts of structural and deck stringlines. Mr. Bright concluded that if the Coastal Commission's decision would impact the plans before the Planning Commission, then the project will have to be reviewed again unless the application conforms with the City's Codes. Mr. Brion Jeannette reappeared before the Planning Commission and he responded to previous testimony during the public hearing as follows: that he has been in contact with the Coastal Commission regarding the deck stringline and that the Coastal Commission has replied that they have the right to go to the deck stringlinesj that they are not affecting the sand on the bayward side of the project and that if there are -17- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL • MINUTES February 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH tidepools or intertidal areas, they will not be removed; the rock removal plan is a part of the grading plan that the City has required as one of the conditions of approval, that they do intend to perform the activity of that grading plan under the direction of the City's Grading Engineer; the environmental document identifies the resolution to certain elements that were talked about as having the potential to create environmental concerns, and they have been mitigated and are listed in the staff report; and in conclusion, he stated that there are ways to build in and on the rock, and that the applicants will do no more than what anyone has done in the area. Commissioner Pomeroy and Mr. Jeannette discussed the height above natural grade at Shell Street, and in conclusion, Commissioner Pomeroy asked if the grade on the lot at the street were one foot above instead of one foot below the street, would the structure meet the basic height limit in this area? Mr. Jeannette replied that it would not, that it would still be one foot over the basic height limit, or approximately 25 feet average roof height as opposed to 24 feet. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman pointed out that the application has been before the Planning Commission on two separate occasions and the application has changed substantially since the first time the Planning Commission heard it due to certain changes by the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Koppelman further stated that she has been unable to make the required findings for the subject Variance approval as follows: that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances on this land as opposed to other pieces of property in the same district; that this property does not differ from any other piece of property in China Cove; that the granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation of circumstantial property rights in this particular case inasmuch as a rather substantial house can still be built within the 24 foot height limit; that the proposed development is two story exceeding the height limitation. on Shell Street, and the roof line could be brought down; and problems involved in the rock splitting is something that is still questionable as to the over -all safety and it is difficult to make a finding that this project would not be possibly injurious to adjacent property owners mm INDEX COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL Motion • MINUTES February 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH because it appears that the adjacent property owners were given advise not to build into the bedrock and the applicants are going to have substantial demolition into the bedrock which apparently runs throughout the entire community. Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3249 and to deny Variance No. 1139 subject to the findings in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Merrill stated that there could be a compromise, that he could grant the approval of a variance to exceed the basic height in the middle of the structure; however, as a trade -off, the applicant would have to reduce the height of the bedroom adjacent to the bay because the height would infringe on the views of adjacent properties. Commissioner Pomeroy requested that staff comment on the subject variance. Mr. Hewicker addressed the application as follows: It is staff's feeling that it is a difficult site and it shares some of the same characteristics as the adjoining sites on the bay side of Shell Street. There has been another variance which has been granted on an adjoining property that permitted the structure to exceed the basic height limit where there were two homes, which were combined together and where the roof may have exceeded the height limit, that was permitted by the Code since those dwellings were allowed to join together and maintain the same roof line. Other variances have been granted in China Cove on some of the smaller lots where the buildable area of the lots were so small it would be difficult to build a home of adequate size or a home of comparable size to some of the other dwellings in China Cove. In reference to the four lots that have been turned into two building sites, he said that although most of the homes on the bay side are on wider parcels, the subject lots were divided many years ago, and the fact that those lots have now been sold to two different owners,. the question is, what needs to be done to provide a house of adequate size and configuration for the owners who wish to build? Mr. Hewicker stated that it is true that the owners are being squeezed by the Coastal Commission that is requiring that the building be set back from the bay to -19- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Fpm t+ February 19, 1987 B 9 T9 oti 99 °yf�yCyy y ` � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX protect the environment and surrounding views, and by the community who wants to see existing views maintained adjacent to Shell Street. While private views may be encroached upon, in respect to this particular application, the staff can find no loss of view or significant loss of view from public streets or public areas within Corona del Mar or China Cove that would be created by the construction of this dwelling, and the history of the City has been to try to preserve public views as opposed to private views. Mr. Hewicker maintained that one problem may be the architectural style or the type of spaciousness the applicants want to achieve in respect to their dwelling. The average floor to ceiling heights in a dwelling are typically eight feet, and the proposed plans have higher height limits within the particular structure, but it is not the whole room heights that have been raised. They have made a good effort, particularly adjacent to the bay, to try to adhere to the direction that has been given to them by staff and by the Planning Commission. In respect to the rear portion of the structure adjacent to Shell Street, Mr. Hewicker stated that because they do have a driveway and a large parking area, they have to maintain a certain clearance above the driveway in order to get automobiles into the garages. In addition, they are trying to get two living levels above the parking area. It may be true that seven foot ceiling heights could be provided, but it may not necessarily be the type of design that anyone would want to live in nor it may not be aesthetically appealing to the neighborhood. Substitute x Substitute motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3249 Motion and approve Variance No. 1139 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including staff's aforementioned Conditions No. 19, 20, 21, and 22. Commissioner Merrill's motion included the reduction of the master bedroom ceiling height from 13 feet 6 inches to 9 feet 6 inches for the purpose of protecting the views from the bluff area. Discussion followed between Mr. Jeannette and Commissioner Merrill regarding the requested reduction in ceiling height. Commissioner Eichenhofer stated that she cannot support either motion, because the subject property is different from some of the other properties in the surrounding area. She explained that the stringline -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 y t^1S ROLE CALL INDEX has to be arrived at because previously approved structures have already been developed. Commissioner Eichenhofer pointed out that the structure has been pushed back from the bay, and the front of the dwelling adjacent to the bay does conform to the Code. Substitute Substitute substitute motion was made to deny Use Substitute Permit No. 3249 and approve Variance No. 1139, subject Motion x to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including staff's aforementioned Conditions No. 19, 20, 21, and 22. Commissioner Eichenhofer explained that she could not support Mr. Bright's aforementioned suggested condition regarding the spawning period in the tidepools, because she does not have enough information to substantiate the recommendation; however, she agreed to Mr. Bright's recommended condition as Condition No. 23 stating "that a specific rock removal plan be submitted to and approved by the Building Department ". Commissioner Kurlander stated that he would support the substitute substitute motion because the applicant could still build a dwelling three feet higher on the bayside without the variance request, which would block more views from the buildings across the street, and still have the rock removal problem with no control, and no control of bonding or insurance. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the architecture of the building has been given serious consideration because a boxy structure could be constructed without the variance request, .which would not enhance the neighborhood. He said that he was also concerned about the objections made from the neighbors who do not want something built on the lot just because they do not want something built there; further, he said that those lots had been subdivided and he believes that property owners should have an opportunity to build on property that they own as long as they meet conditions of what has been approved within the City in the past. Ayes x x x x Substitute substitute motion voted on to deny Use Noes x x x Permit No. 3249, approve Variance No. 1139, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the addition of aforementioned Conditions No'. 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, and related Environmental Document. M MOTION CARRIED. -21- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ya ;0�G F °� February 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3249 A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Finding: 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; however, no action is required on an environmental document in conjunction with a project that is denied. a. USE PERMIT NO. 3249 FINDINGS: 1. That the increased building height will not result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 2. That it has been determined that all of the criteria necessary to permit an increase of the basic height limit, as set forth in Section 20.02.035, have not been met. 3. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3249 will, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. Variance No. 1139 A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. -22- COMMISSIONERS IMRIUT _p February 19, 1987 Gyyy N°yy�CVy � �yZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. B. Variance No. 1139: Approve the Variance with the Findings and subject to the Conditions below: FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circum- stances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the lot has substantial grade differ- entials due to rocky and sandy areas within the lot area. 2. That the granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the grade differentials severely restrict the ability to design a home within the height limit. 3. That the size of the lot does not unduly limit the ability to design a home with adequate living space. 4. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will not, under the circumstances of the 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 improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the residence shall not contain more than 4,441± sq. ft. of gross floor area (1.46 x buildable area). -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o L�yG�`o� t+ February 19, 1987 9 yf 9 .Q y Gyy Noy ! �yy ` ;9 �' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 y �^y ROLr CALL INDEX 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a wave action study be prepared by a civil engineer, and that the proposed structure be protected in conformance with the recommendations of the study and to the satisfaction of the Building Department and Marine Department. 5. That the design of the proposed driveway be revised at the property line to provide a maximum grade break of 128. 6. The design of the driveway shall be subject to review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. 7. That the applicants shall record a covenant to hold the subject property as a single building site in accordance with Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. That any construction within the intertidal zone, unless otherwise prohibited by the Coastal commis- sion, shall be subject to the issuance of a Harbor Permit. 9. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 10. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 11. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 12. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 13. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an -24- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o16��¢G F� t+ February 19, 1987 a ��9y �9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. The soils investigation shall include a detailed slope stability analysis. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 14. That adequate provisions be taken to insure that no debris, siltation or foreign material be permitted to enter the bay during demolition and construction. 15. Prior to issuance of building permits, the appli- cant shall agree to participate in a compensation program for the loss of intertidal area which shall be commensurate with the replacement costs of the intertidal habitat, not to exceed $3,000.00, provided that the City and the various agencies involved in regulation of Newport Bay • have established such a program. 16. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. the plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Elec- trical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 17. That development of the site not be allowed to encroach into the areas required for setback yards as established by the California Coastal Commis- sion and /or the City of Newport Beach, whichever is greater. 18. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 19. The applicant shall enter into an agreement and post a bond guaranteeing the repair of all damage to the public street system and /or utilities that might be caused by the construction process. 20. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall enter into an -25- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 19, 1987 M ROLL CALL I I I J i l l I I INDEX • agreement and provide a policy of insurance guaranteeing the repair of all damage to private property, business interruption or other damage caused by the construction process. Said policy of insurance shall be in an amount to be determined by the Building Official, City Engineer and City Attorney. 21. The building contractor shall examine existing streets to ensure that trucks assigned to the project can negotiate required turns and demonstrate such to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Building Departments. 22. Any activity that would require partial street closure, parking prohibition, heavy truck traffic, large or heavy loads or similar activities shall be approved by the Police Department and the Traffic Engineer. Full street closure shall be prohibited at any time. 23. That a specific rock removal plan be submitted to and approved by the Building Department. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. * * x Amendment No. 646 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, adding Chapter 20.64, the Santa Ana Heights Specific Area Plan; amending Districting Maps No. 34, 42, 61, and 67; and the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff has submitted changes to the Specific Plan as a result of the February 5, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, and discussions with property owners between the Planning Commission meeting and the time that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. -26- Item No.5 A646 Continued to March 5, 1987 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yq ��j��G'FOq February 19, 1987 9?+oy�9ylyy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Craig Bluell, Senior Planner, addressed the following changes involving the Specific Plan: an absolute height limit of 35 feet; clarified design standards for development in the Specific Plan area; language in the Business Park development standards so as to specifically describe the development standards intended; requirements for mechanical screening in all three commercial districts: Business Park - Professional, Administrative - and General Commercial. In reference to the supplemental staff report submitted to the Planning Commission, Mr. Bluell stated that staff prepared a summary of the contents of 15 letters that were received by the Planning Department on February 18, 1987, and addressed to the Planning Commission. He commented that one letter was opposed to any changes in the Specific Plan that the County adopted, and that the remaining 14 letters support the City's Specific Plan, specifically the proposed circulation plan. • Mr. Hewicker explained that the architectural guidelines in the Business Park area specifically deleted reference to early or rural California, and put back in some, of the language that the County had with respect to the types of buildings, materials, and trim, and the fact that staff was recommending no exterior glass curtain walls or reflective glass. Mr. Hewicker commented that letters from Supervisor Riley addressed to Mr. Buck Johns dated January 30, 1987, Robert Hopkins, and Alice Rodriquez were received by staff prior to the subject public hearing. Mr. Bluell referred to the work that staff has done regarding the circulation system, and he emphasized that the realignment and connection at Mesa Drive and Birch Street is not a precise alignment as shown in the Specific Plan, that a precise alignment study is to be made at a later date. He further emphasized that staff's primary intent is to keep the business traffic out of the residential area; therefore, to establish • -27- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Z ;��G�pgti February 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Birch Street would provide maximum flow and attract people to use Birch Street as opposed to other residential streets in the area. In reference to Robert Hopkins' letter dated February 19, 1987, addressed to the Planning Commission, Chairman Person quoted the letter as stating that EIR 508A is not adequate, and does not provide the Planning Commission the basis to adopt the realignment of the intersection at Mesa Drive and Birch Street. Mr. Hewicker *replied that staff is not recommending a precise realignment for Birch Street and Mesa Drive, the connection is shown on the Specific Plan as only a possible realignment. Staff indicated in the text of the Specific Plan that if the area is annexed to the City of Newport Beach, that there would be a study done within six months after annexation to specifically address the precise alignment of Birch Street with Mesa Drive connection. • Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that the projected traffic volumes necessitate the realignment of the Birch Street and Mesa Drive connection. He explained that there was an alternate in the environmental document that was very similar to that alignment; however, the alignment went diagonally through several parcels and created a more direct route to Irvine Avenue, but the volumes predicted would be virtually the same as if Birch Street were to go down to Mesa Drive and be connected. Chairman Person commented that staff will be doing an environmental document to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. In response to a clarification requested by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Hewicker replied that if the Specific Plan is adopted and if the area is annexed to the City, within six months there would be a study done to look at all of the various alignments creating a connection of Birch Street to Mesa Drive as indicated, and as a result, staff would also be looking at any possible changes that may be brought about in land use. Mr. Hewicker added that this is not a part of the subject public hearing or the Specific Plan. • Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the environmental documentation is adequate to take action _28_ COMMISSIONERS MINUTES °A February 19, 1987 A • �G� .c�°Z�f f� Cy��y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 y t^,D ROLL CALL INDEX during the subject public hearing. She further stated that in addition to the alignment study there would be supplemental environmental analysis prepared if required, there will be specific responses to comments prepared and included in the final EIR. Ms. Korade said that this will be done prior to final certification and approval of the EIR and prior to final action by the City Council. Commissioner Koppelman and Commissioner Eichenhofer stated that they have read the staff report and listened to the tape of the February 5, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, and they are prepared to participate in the subject public hearing. Mr. Rich Adler, Orange County Environmental Management Agency, appeared before the Planning Commission to make a brief presentation explaining the County's planning process during the past five years. He explained that the Land Use Plan is a result of the Land Use Compatability Program as adopted by the Board of • Supervisors, February, 1985. He said that after negotiations with the community, the County Planning staff recommended a Specific Plan to the County Planning Commission similar to the City's proposed Specific Plan. He explained that when the County Planning Commission's proposal went to the Board of Supervisors, the Board of Supervisors were not satisfied with that proposal, so the staff spent additional time to come up with the approved Specific Plan. Mr. Adler stated that when the circulation system went to the .Board of Supervisors as part of the Specific Plan, there was discussion by one of the supervisors that there was not a direct connection and he suggested a second look. The County staff was directed to look at all feasible connections of Mesa Drive to Acacia Street and Birch Street with the provision that staff look at those connections in particular that do not damage existing residences. In conclusion, Mr. Adler stated that the County is concerned about the homes on Mesa Drive and how an alignment could be developed to go through those properties. Mr. Jim Belt, property owner of the northeast corner of Cypress Street and Orchard Street, appeared before the • Planning Commission, and stated that he has been trying to develop the said property for the past 17 years. He described his concerns regarding the cul -de -sac on -29- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES yA py t+ February 19, 1987 my �yc��oc ;s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Cypress Street as proposed, and the proposed alley that would run parallel to Bristol Street. Mr. Belt objected to the proposed cul -de -sac because it would not allow him an ingress /egress to his property and it would depreciate the value of his property. He referred to a chart that indicated that many of the property owners do not support a cul -de -sac as proposed, however, they would support commercial instead of residential /equestrian. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person in reference to a drawing, Mr. Belt replied that he would support a cul -de -sac on the southside of Orchard Street and Cypress Street. Chairman Person reminded Mr. Belt that the Planning Commission is not designating zoning during the subject public hearing. Mr. Fred Peterson, 20361 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated that some of the residents would like to remain in the area regardless • of the zoning. He said that the noise is quieter from the airplanes because of the quieter aircraft, that he would like to be rezoned residential /equestrian, that he would oppose annexation with the widening of Birch Street, when he takes his horse on a harness or cart on Birch Street to Mesa Drive there is a problem because of the traffic and he would like to be able to use the equestrian trails, if Birch Street would be widened the road would come up 12 feet to his house, he recommended the County's Specific Plan with a cul -de -sac on Birch Street which would protect the residents who remain on Mesa Drive and Birch Street, that he has a commercial stable license and he would like to be able to continue to allow area residents to board their horses on his property, and that he would like to be able to take advantage of the proposed trails in the back bay area. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Peterson explained the residential area surrounding the alignment of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the zoning preferences of the residents. Mr. Richard Moriarty, 20362 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed circulation plan. He stated that he will continue to reside on his property where he also has a • commercial nursery. Mr. Moriarty stated that the traffic on Birch Street is dangerous and he explained that many of the animals owned by the residents have -30- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 19, 1987 . �4. -I- �c CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX been killed on the street by automobiles, and that if Birch Street would be widened to four lanes traffic would only become worse. He stated that he supports the cul -de -sac at the south end of Birch Street as recommended in the County's Specific Plan. Mrs. Patricia Cox, 2612 Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of her daughter who is the resident and property owner at 20411 Birch Street. Mrs. Cox referred to the staff report which states that a variance could be requested on the 66 foot lot adjacent to residential properties to allow the owner to disregard the setback requirements in the Specific Plan, and she pointed out that the address referred to in the staff report is her daughter's address. Mrs. Cox stated that her daughter did not ask to be rezoned, that she was rezoned against her will, and that she would like to be residential and have the cul -de -sac on Birch Street that was promised by the County. She stated that for the City to encourage or suggest that a • Variance could be granted to eliminate the setback requirement does not make up for the loss in value that her daughter suffers when she was downzoned to office. Mrs. Cox maintained that the elimination of the setback would impact and have an adverse affect on the remaining residential properties and could lead to a domino affect through the area. She said that the setback requirements buffeting the cul -de -sac and entry monuments were done to protect the integrity of the Specific Plan and should be implemented, not eliminated. Mrs. Cox, representing herself, stated that the traffic should be diverted up Acacia Street and implemented as promised by the County; however, she does not want through traffic going past Acacia Street. Mrs. Cox explained that the County put a very definite entrance there so that they would know which would be commercial and which would be residential, and it would protect the area. Mrs. Sue Cathcart, 20132 Cypress Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cathcart submitted 40 letters in support of the City's Specific Plan and 1 letter that was in support of the County's Specific Plan. Mr. Dave Swinford, Sequim, Washington, and property owner of 20381 Birch Street, appeared before the -31- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �q 0 February 19, 1987 BG �9N yy9� ,0 y� 99 �yC9yCyy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH now ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Commission. Mr. Swinford stated that he is in full support of the City's Specific Plan including the circulation plan. Mr. Gerald Silsbee, 2352 Bay Farm Place, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the County's Specific Plan. Mr. Silsbee explained how the residents compromised with the County's Specific Plan, and he also stated that he supports the annexation into the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Robert Hopkins, attorney, 17801 Cartwright, Irvine, appeared before the Planning Commission, representing some of the Mesa Drive homeowners. He added that he is also representing a petitioner with an action now pending in Superior Court relating to the County's Specific Plan height limit, which has been modified in the City's Specific Plan. Mr. Hopkins responded to previous statements by staff: That the City's Specific Plan states that there will be a "realignment of the • intersection at Mesa Drive and Birch Street to provide a through traffic connection" and "a precise alignment shall be completed within 6 months after annexation ". In reference to the results of the Mesa Drive/Birch Street alignment study and redesignation of the residential area to Business Park - that the proposal dissects Mesa Drive between Acacia Street and Birch Street, the Equestrian District cannot remain, and if the Business Park is the intent, then the City should not impose merely a circulation element within a Specific Plan to get there, but to get that first and do it according to normal procedures; The goal of the circulation plan relating to the through traffic of Birch Street is to keep the business traffic out of the residential area that the City Plan doesn't, that the County's Specific Plan solves the difficult problem, that he understands staff's difficulty of attempting to master plan an area of mixed use that is existing, that the County plan was designed to make it difficult to travel to the businesses; that the attitude of Cypress Street residents to Birch Street residents should be judged accordingly. In reference to his letter dated February 19, 1987, addressed to the Planning Commission, Mr. Hopkins added that many of the traffic figures in the Environmental Impact Report 508A are subject to doubt because the figures do not take into account the affect of the Corona del Mar Freeway. Mr. Hopkins concluded that as -32- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES °a'Ln�G�o February 19, 1987 �mG 9N 99�� AAFy�i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9Zc�,9 ROLL CALL INDEX long as Improvement 5 is in the Specific Plan, the Planning Commission must rely on the Environmental Documentation to at least get to that point because he does not think that it is adequate. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Hopkins replied that he represents Mr. Mullen, Mrs. Cox and some neighbors. Chairman Person explained that the Planning Commission has been given a Specific Plan and that the Commission is attempting to meet the City's standards so as to make things work for the residents of Santa Ana Heights and the residents of Newport Beach. Mr. Bill Schneider, property owner at the corner of Birch Street and Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he supports the annexation into Newport Beach, and the realignment of Mesa Drive and Birch Street. He further stated that he would prefer that his property be rezoned • "Professional, Administrative ". Mr. Schneider maintained that because Birch Street is zoned "Business Park" then Birch Street should be used as a through street; that the street should be realigned with Mesa Drive; that it would be easier to obtain land from the neighboring golf course than to take away front yards of people's homes; that according to staff's exhibits all of the lots are going to lose considerable square footage if Mesa Drive is constructed to a four lane road and if Birch Street is expanded; that he would lose about 50 percent of his lot and he would like to be compensated; that he would be willing to meet with staff to work on the proposed realignments; that the previous speaker, Mr. Hopkins, does not represent all of the Mesa Drive property owners and that many of the neighbors do not feel the same way that Mr. Hopkins does. Mrs. Elsie Winford Horne, 2011 Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to also represent her son, Jack Winford, 2001 Mesa Drive. She said that they are in favor of the annexation; however, they would like to be zoned "Business Park ". Mrs. Horne explained that she would have difficulty making a left turn out of her driveway onto Acacia Street if the street would be widened. . Mr. Jack Mullen, 2031 Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, stating his disapproval of the -33- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES °A n February 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 y c^,9 ROLL CALL INDEX proposed Specific Plan for the following reasons: that it would further the development of the airport; that through traffic would not help the people in the area; that Birch Street was rezoned against the residents wishes; that real estate brokers are erroneously telling the residents that their property will increase in value; that the County's Specific Plan does not allow office use in residential areas; that a constructed home is worth more than a vacant lot; that his property would depreciate 50 percent; and he quoted sales and rental land values in the area. Mr. Mullen concluded that he is opposed to the widening of Mesa Drive, the elimination of the. cul -de -sac on Birch Street, and that 71 percent of the voters approved the County's Specific Plan. Mr. Hewicker stated that the testimony from most of the residents in the vicinity of Mesa Drive and Birch Street have indicated that they prefer "Equestrian /Residential" as opposed to "Business Park ", and if so, why did the County bring the Business Park . so far down Birch Street? Mr. Mullen replied that the County Planning Commission, the Airport Land Use Commission, and the Airport Commission approved a plan that was separated by a road going up Acacia Street and cutting diagonally north; that the Plan separated the residents who wish to remain residential from the residents who wish to be rezoned; that if the residents would obtain their money from the Purchase Assurance Plan instead of from a developer who would convert it to another use then that would have been the most acceptable plan; however, that Plan was sent back to the County Planning Commission for review, and the Plan as approved by the Planning Commission was "jammed" down their throats as "take it or get nothing ". The Planning Commission recessed at 10:15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:25 p.m. Mr. Norm Batchelder, 20121 Cypress Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, to state that he approves annexation. He emphasized that because of the County, he has not been able to successfully operate a rabbit ranch, that his property should be zoned "Commercial ", and that he would like to leave the area. • He approves of the proposed cul -de -sac, that he wants a four -way stop sign at the corner of Orchard Street and Cypress Street to slow down the traffic, that there is -34- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX no traffic enforcement, and that he proposes a temporary barrier to close off the traffic. Mr. Bryan May, 2041 Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that he is opposed to the widening of Mesa Drive and Birch Street, and to variances if they would significantly impact the property. He said that he is in favor of the County's Specific Plan regarding the cul -de -sac at the end of Birch Street. Ms. Nancy Kaufman, 2432 Azure Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. She commented that she has been a member of the Back Bay Community Association, has been involved in the community for ten years, and has been legal counsel for the community in many proceedings. Mrs. Kaufman explained that there were groups of homeowners who were attempting to maintain residential uses in the area to the maximum extent possible, and the plan the County arrived at was the • result of bitterly fought battles over many years, they finally came to a compromise, which was the best compromise that they could get. She stated that many property owners with their own private interests have been considered before; there is no way that the City is going to make everyone happy; and that a reasonable solution has been arrived at that most of the residents are happy with. Mrs. Kaufman alleged that it would be a terrible mistake at this time to make any fundamental changes in the County's Plan, and proposed changes such as the intersection of Mesa Drive and Birch Street is not a minor modification, it is major because the intersection "knocks" out a large residential chunk, and the residents have fought for every single residential space. She further stated that it would be inappropriate at this time to make changes, and she urged the Planning Commission to adopt the County's Specific Plan without the City's proposed changes, inasmuch as the City's proposed changes could be considered later. Mrs. Kaufman emphasized that Santa Ana Heights will have to be protected from the traffic, but to remove acreage in order to protect the rest of the area is almost like "destroying the City to save it ". She requested more exploration of other alternatives; what has been proposed by the City is not covered by any existing EIR; the residents do not know • what will happen and they do not have any current information. Mrs. Kaufman concluded her presentation by stating that she was unsure if the proposed traffic -35- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX circulation is the best one, and that many of the suggestions that have been made, such as changing the cul -de -sac on Cypress Street, are envisioning a future where part of Cypress Street at least would go Commercial, and she said that is not before the Planning Commission now, and that should not be considered now. Mrs. Kaufman presented a letter to the Planning Commission from Khosro Khaloghli, 2242 Mesa Drive, stating his opposition to property conversion on Mesa Drive from residential to commercial. She pointed out that the letter urges the Planning Commission to recommend adoption of the Specific Plan as approved by the County of Orange. Ms. Christine Thagard appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of The Koll Company who owns property on Cypress Street. Ms. Thagard testified that The Koll Company opposes the alley proposed between Cypress Street and Birch Street adjacent to the Koll property, and she presented the following reasons: • that the alley did not receive support from the commercial businesses between Cypress Street and Birch Street because they felt that the alley was not necessary; that the alley does not solve the parking problem at the McDonald's shopping center; that Cypress Street would become an overflow parking lot for McDonald's shopping center; the land, engineering, and improvement costs would total about $1 million; the alley would put the traffic back into the residential area by creating parking on Cypress Street; the alley will empty on to Birch Street within 250 feet of a very busy traffic signal. Ms. Thagard concluded her testimony by stating that The Koll Company is requesting that the Planning Commission consider the alley just as the County did, to eliminate the proposal from the Specific Plan because the alley does not meet any of the City's objectives. Mr. Bill warren, 20412 Birch Street and 20402 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission as a resident who has lived in Santa Ana Heights for 30 years and the owner of the Bayside Riding Club. He explained that he has been meeting with other residents regarding the Specific Plan since 1981. He remarked • that the airport has been there for many years and that the airport will stay and grow; that there was a proposed street connection from Acacia Street to Birch Street that Supervisor Riley said would never be -36- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o+L0�6� °� n February 19, 1987 d 9 9� eti z ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9y�,a ROLL CALL INDEX approved because the connection slashed through 17 individual pieces of property which was the main reason that the connection was turned down; that the only realistic connection is Birch Street because it goes across the Corona del Mar Freeway; and he explained what could happen to the traffic circulation on Acacia Street and Mesa Drive. Mr. Warren stated that his property is the last property zoned "Business Park ", and on the east side of the street no one owns a horse between his property and Orchard Street; however, he said that there is a commercial nursery, and he described the heavy traffic on Birch Street. Mrs. Heidi Turner, 20271 Cypress Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that she has been a resident since 1972, and has three young children. Mrs. Turner expressed her concerns regarding the traffic on Cypress Street; that two horses were hit by automobiles and were killed; that the businesses have created more traffic in the area; that she wants . her children to be able to ride ponies but that she is concerned about their safety in the street; the police do not patrol the traffic; that a chain link fence was built on the front of her property to keep the children from going into the street; that the once quiet neighborhood has turned into a battleground because of the conflict between the neighbors; she supports a cul -de -sac at the south end of Cypress Street or a cul -de -sac on Orchard Street and Cypress Street; requests a four -way stop sign because of the fast traffic on Cypress Street; and she requested that the City make the area safer for the children so they can ride their horses in the street. Mrs. Mary Davis, 1971 Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission opposing the strip on Mesa Drive that the County left in the residential zone. She maintained that the circulation plan was not considered more seriously before the County allowed the strip to exist. Mrs. Davis explained that she would like to remain in the area for the indeterminant future, however, she said that when she does decide to sell her property that she would like to be assured that there would be a market for her property, and she asked who would want to buy residential property underneath the flight line? Ms. Siska Stellhorn, 20292 Acacia Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. She said that she has -37- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX been an advocate of allowing the neighborhood to remain residential /equestrian for the past 13 years. Ms. Stellhorn commented that no new issues have been presented to the Planning Commission and that all of the issues have been before the County. She contended that no issues have been presented that would warrant the Planning Commission to make new designations or land use changes, that the County spent alot of time in making their decision, and the result is two Specific Plans over the past eight years. Ms. Stellhorn explained that the County Specific Plan is a compromise, not everyone is happy, but the result is what the County and residents felt was the best overall plan for the area. She requested that the Planning Commission approve the County's Specific Plan as implemented. Chairman Person requested the Planning Commission's intent and recommendations. Commissioner Winburn stated that the proposed Specific Plan is new to the Planning Commission and that she has been interested in . hearing the testimony from the Santa Ana Heights residents because she did not attend the County's public hearings. Mr. Hewicker stated that there has not been a great deal of comment or concern regarding all of the changes suggested by the staff in respect to height limits, screening of mechanical equipment on roofs, etc., but there has been testimony concerning the circulation plan that deviates from the Plan that was adopted by the County. He explained that staff has taken the land uses that were approved by the County, has amended the General Plan to conform with the County's General Plan, and he pointed out that there are not any changes of land use before the Planning Commssion. Mr. Hewicker suggested that staff could prepare an alternate plan that would keep all of the land uses as approved, keep the height as recommended by staff, keep the architectural guidelines, etc., but put back in the circulation system that was accepted by the County so that the Planning Commission would have a clear choice between the circulation plan adopted by the County, and staff's recommendation for adoption of the circulation plan, which staff feels is required to support the • projected 962,000 square footage for offices. Chairman Person agreed with Mr. Hewicker's recommendation. He said that he would like to see the -38- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 19, 1987 ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX comparison, including Alternate 2 which was proposed at one time by the County involving a number of lots between Acacia Street and Birch Street. He said that he would like to see a comparison cost analysis as to the different alignments and the bottom line costs of that type of alignment. Mr. Hewicker stated that Chairman Person's request would require an amendment to the General Plan, and that is not what the Planning Commission is hearing. Commissioner Kurlander referred to the residential area in the proposed zoned Business Park, and he asked if the residential area would be permitted to remain as residential until redevelopment, or if the residents would be forced out of the Business Park area because they are residential? Mr. Hewicker replied that the residents would be allowed to remain, the use would be legal non - conforming; however, the residents could not intensify the property. • Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would request alternatives because the County plan without circulation, as proposed, would have been totally adequate if there had not been a change in land use designations and had remained totally residential; however, with the addition of the Business Park and proposed one million square feet of office space, the circulation system does not appear to be adequate to hold it, and she would like clarification and alternatives. Commissioner Koppelman pointed out that the Planning Commission has seen what can happen to residential neighborhoods that are in Newport Beach when the circulation system for the businesses is not adequate, and the problems that the traffic has caused by going through residential areas. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she is not requesting studies that would be contrary to the General Plan; however, the County submitted three different alternatives. Mr. Hewicker advised that the County had alternatives but they were alternatives to circulation and also they had companion alternatives in land use. Motion x Chairman Person made a motion to continue Amendment No. All Ayes 646 to the March 5, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. He emphasized that the Planning Commission is trying to do their business as planners for the City. He stated that the County has suggested a plan wherein a compromise was made. Chairman Person explained that the County's compromise makes it more difficult for the -39- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y Nk\xl�?j �� February 19, 19 87 a� fyy °��9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Commission to adopt the best plan for the City of Newport Beach. Motion voted on to continue Amendment No. 646 to the March 5, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. * * * D I S C U S S I G N I T E M Discussion Item Report from staff regarding possible amendment to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance or Council Policy S -1 Council pertaining to credit for trips generated by current or Policy S -1 previously existing development. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion x Motion was made to direct staff to prepare a report for All Ayes City Council regarding an amendment to Council Policy S-1 for the yearly amendment consideration in October, 0 1987. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: Additional Business Motion x Motion was made to excuse Commissioner Koppelman from All Ayes the March 5, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion Excused voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Absence * * * A D J 0 U R N M E N T: 11:05 p.m. Adjournment * * * PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -40-