The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/21/1985COMMISSIONERS A a c o i = 79 y T r m Z c m , , z m a z z r c z p m o r I m i Z x z a a r m REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: February 21, 1985 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Present i Motion Ayes Abstain Motion All Ayes I� u x1x All Commissioners Present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney � * t STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary - x x Minutes of February 7, 1985 Motion was made for approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 7, 1985, which MOTION CARRIED. Request for Continuance Staff recommended that Agenda Item No. 8, Use Permit No. 1417 (Amended), be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of.March 21, 1985. Motion was made to continue Item No. 8 to March 21, 1985, which MOTION CARRIED. x t Amendment No. 616 (Public Hearing) Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 23 so as to reduce the bayside setback of Lot 1, Tract No. 802 from 15 feet to zero feet, with the exception that a triangular area in the northeasterly corner of the site, measuring 35 feet along the bay and 18 feet along the easterly property line shall be maintained as a clear, unobstructed front yard setback. 1 Minutes Feb.7,1985 Request for Continu- ance Item No.l Amendment No. 616 Approved R R C O f a z c m m 01 a D a r Q C= W O C O i s i s a February 21, 1985 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALLT I I I I I I I IINDEX 0 • LOCATION: Lot 1, Tract No. 802 and an adjoining parcel measured from Lot 1 to the Ordinary High Tide Line, located at #1 Harbor Island Drive, on the northwesterly end of Harbor Island Drive, on Harbor Island. ZONE: R -1 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach OWNER: E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., Anaheim AND Variance No. 1119 (Continued Public Hearing) (Item No.2 Request to permit the construction of single family Variance dwelling in the R -1 District which exceeds two times No. 1119 the buildable area of the site. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to Denied allow the proposed structure to encroach 15 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback. LOCATION: Lot 1, Tract No. 802 and an adjoining parcel measured from Lot 1 to the Ordinary High Tide Line, located at #1 Harbor Island Drive, on the northwesterly end of Harbor Island Drive, on Harbor Island. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT:Donald Bendetti, Newport Beach OWNER: E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., Anaheim The public hearing opened in connection with these items, and Mr. Donald Bendetti, the applicant for Variance No. 1119, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bendetti stated that he approves of the Amendment to a portion of Districting Map no. 23, Amendment No. 616. Mr. Bendetti advised that to reduce the garage area from 1,726 square feet to 916 square feet would destroy the ability to use the very expensive space in the basement. Mr. Bendetti stated that if the variance would not be approved then there would not be ample 2 ROLL February 21, 1985 MINUTES space for a turn - around area in the basement; that three automobiles would barely fit into the garage; and it would be necessary for the automobiles to back out onto Harbor Island Road. Mr. Bendetti stated that the additional parking area in the garage would provide parking space for guests and visitors and relieve parking congestion at the end of Harbor Island Road. Mr. Bendetti further stated that the underground parking area is also important because the property is irregularly shaped and is smaller than most of the lots on Harbor Island. 7 Mr. Michael Gering, Attorney, 5000 Birch Street, C O Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission 30 X c m> on behalf of the Harbor Island Community Association. a z T Mr. Gering advised that the Harbor Island Community C= H o r O 0 Association held a meeting on February 19, 1985, and W City of Newport Beach , = a a m and the subject Variance. Mr. Gering also stated that space for a turn - around area in the basement; that three automobiles would barely fit into the garage; and it would be necessary for the automobiles to back out onto Harbor Island Road. Mr. Bendetti stated that the additional parking area in the garage would provide parking space for guests and visitors and relieve parking congestion at the end of Harbor Island Road. Mr. Bendetti further stated that the underground parking area is also important because the property is irregularly shaped and is smaller than most of the lots on Harbor Island. ission opposing the subject 3 Mr. Michael Gering, Attorney, 5000 Birch Street, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Harbor Island Community Association. Mr. Gering advised that the Harbor Island Community Association held a meeting on February 19, 1985, and voted to oppose the Amendment to the Districting Map and the subject Variance. Mr. Gering also stated that the majority of the homeowners opposed any modifications, variances, or amendments to Districting Map No. 23 that would encroach upon the present 15 foot front yard setback, and opposed any projects that would exceed the permitted floor area ratio of 2.0 times the buildable area. Mr. Gering referred to a chart in the staff report which compared the size of several existing residences on Harbor Island and cited that the size of two of the residences was incorrect. Mr. Gering stated that the residence at No. 10 Harbor Island actually contains 5,055 sq. ft., and that the dwelling under construction at No. 19 Harbor Island would contain 16,500 sq. ft. upon completion. Mr. Gering also stated that the current dwellings on Harbor Island do not exceed 2.0 times the buildable area, and that the structures referenced in the staff report have been constructed on larger lots. Mr. Gering reviewed the list of existing encroachments in the staff report and advised that the majority of these encroachments are either overhangs or patio covers, and that none of the dwelling units encroach into the 15 foot front yard setback area. ission opposing the subject 3 In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Roppelman, Mr. James Hewicker, Planning Director, advised that overhangs and awnings are encroachments. Mr. Thayer Crispin, No. 2 Harbor Island, appeared before the Planning Comm ission opposing the subject 3 ROLL February 21, 1985 MINUTES Variance. Mr. Crispin stated that he favors the Harbor Island Community Association's positions regarding setbacks and buildable area. Mr. Crispin advised that the site line from his property would be jeopardized if the subject Variance is approved. Mr. Crispin requested that there be an investigation of No. 17 Harbor Island to determine why the Districting Map designates a setback of zero feet adjacent to the bay. F Mr. E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., 651 Dwyer Drive, C c O Anaheim, appeared before the Planning.Commission. Mr. i x Overholt stated that he attended the Harbor Island y 9, 7 m Community Association meeting on February 19, 1985, and z c m> n a that the homeowners voted to oppose any modifications, Z a = variances, redistricting or development standards to A s m City of Newport Beach Overholt further stated that a motion was made by Mr. Variance. Mr. Crispin stated that he favors the Harbor Island Community Association's positions regarding setbacks and buildable area. Mr. Crispin advised that the site line from his property would be jeopardized if the subject Variance is approved. Mr. Crispin requested that there be an investigation of No. 17 Harbor Island to determine why the Districting Map designates a setback of zero feet adjacent to the bay. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, advised that staff presented the proposal to amend the front yard setback line on the subject property inasmuch as the original Variance presented by the applicant was 3.2 times buildable area. Mr. Burnham stated that amending the setback line would increase the buildable area and would reduce the extent to which the proposed residence would require a Variance, to the buildable area requirements of the City. Mr. Burnham cited that a zero foot setback line along the bayward property line .would not affect the views of the property owners. Mr. Burnham stated that a meeting between Mr. Hewicker and Messrs. Gering, Lyons, and Virtue of the Harbor Island Community Association was held in the City Attorney's office. Mr. Burnham further stated that staff's opinion was that there could be benefits to the proposal to • amend the setback line, and that the purpose of the meeting was to explain the concept to Messrs. Gering, 4 Mr. E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., 651 Dwyer Drive, Anaheim, appeared before the Planning.Commission. Mr. Overholt stated that he attended the Harbor Island Community Association meeting on February 19, 1985, and that the homeowners voted to oppose any modifications, variances, redistricting or development standards to the Municipal Code and that the motion carried. Mr. Overholt further stated that a motion was made by Mr. Crispin to oppose the subject Variance application, and that the vote failed. Mr. Overholt commented that it was his opinion that the residents did not want to take a specific action on a specific property owner on a • specific matter. Mr. Phil Lyons, No. 9 Harbor Island, President of the Harbor Island Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lyons advised that the homeowners unanimously opposed the subject Variance, and that the homeowners voted to oppose all encroachments of setbacks and view lines. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, advised that staff presented the proposal to amend the front yard setback line on the subject property inasmuch as the original Variance presented by the applicant was 3.2 times buildable area. Mr. Burnham stated that amending the setback line would increase the buildable area and would reduce the extent to which the proposed residence would require a Variance, to the buildable area requirements of the City. Mr. Burnham cited that a zero foot setback line along the bayward property line .would not affect the views of the property owners. Mr. Burnham stated that a meeting between Mr. Hewicker and Messrs. Gering, Lyons, and Virtue of the Harbor Island Community Association was held in the City Attorney's office. Mr. Burnham further stated that staff's opinion was that there could be benefits to the proposal to • amend the setback line, and that the purpose of the meeting was to explain the concept to Messrs. Gering, 4 February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS' MINUTES INDEX Lyons, and Virtue and that the results could be explained to the Planning Commission. Mr. Burnham cited that staff was not informed what position the Harbor Island Community Association had taken since that meeting, and that staff has tried to work out a solution between the Association and Mr. Bendetti. Mr. Burnham advised that as a result of the meeting, staff decided to take an Urgency Ordinance to the City Council to preserve the setback lines that are unique to Harbor Island. Mr. Hewicker stated that Mr. Lyons and Mr. Gering had informed him of the outcome of the February 19, 1985, meeting and that the Association had voted against the Variance and the Amendment. Mr. Hewicker advised that an aerial photograph was taken of Harbor Island and from that picture it would be difficult to . detect an eave overhang. Mr. Hewicker advised that there are encroachment regulations in the zoning Ordinance that allow for eave overhangs up to a certain distance. • Mr. Burnham advised that the subject parcel.has unique characteristics to other properties on Harbor Island, and that the amendment to the setback line would not set a precedent. The public hearing was closed at this time. In response to Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Hewicker advised that there would not be an obstruction of views in the event the applicant would build up to the original proposal of 7,950 sq. ft., and that the applicant had never intended to encroach into a bay view. Mr. Hewicker informed the Planning Commission that one purpose of the meeting with representatives of the Harbor Island Community Association and staff was to come up with a line on Districting Map No. 23 that would preserve views from the adjoining properties. Commissioner Turner cited that because of the unique triangular -shape of only two parcels on Harbor Island, and that these two parcels are difficult to utilize, that he supports Amendment No. 616. Commissioner Motion x Turner made a motion to approve Amendment No. 616, subject to the findings for approval in Exhibit "A ". • ( I I I I I ( Commissioner Goff stated that he would not support the motion for two reasons: that there is a possibility 61 xx c o � x z c m m z m z m z m City of Newport Beach INDEX Lyons, and Virtue and that the results could be explained to the Planning Commission. Mr. Burnham cited that staff was not informed what position the Harbor Island Community Association had taken since that meeting, and that staff has tried to work out a solution between the Association and Mr. Bendetti. Mr. Burnham advised that as a result of the meeting, staff decided to take an Urgency Ordinance to the City Council to preserve the setback lines that are unique to Harbor Island. Mr. Hewicker stated that Mr. Lyons and Mr. Gering had informed him of the outcome of the February 19, 1985, meeting and that the Association had voted against the Variance and the Amendment. Mr. Hewicker advised that an aerial photograph was taken of Harbor Island and from that picture it would be difficult to . detect an eave overhang. Mr. Hewicker advised that there are encroachment regulations in the zoning Ordinance that allow for eave overhangs up to a certain distance. • Mr. Burnham advised that the subject parcel.has unique characteristics to other properties on Harbor Island, and that the amendment to the setback line would not set a precedent. The public hearing was closed at this time. In response to Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Hewicker advised that there would not be an obstruction of views in the event the applicant would build up to the original proposal of 7,950 sq. ft., and that the applicant had never intended to encroach into a bay view. Mr. Hewicker informed the Planning Commission that one purpose of the meeting with representatives of the Harbor Island Community Association and staff was to come up with a line on Districting Map No. 23 that would preserve views from the adjoining properties. Commissioner Turner cited that because of the unique triangular -shape of only two parcels on Harbor Island, and that these two parcels are difficult to utilize, that he supports Amendment No. 616. Commissioner Motion x Turner made a motion to approve Amendment No. 616, subject to the findings for approval in Exhibit "A ". • ( I I I I I ( Commissioner Goff stated that he would not support the motion for two reasons: that there is a possibility 61 COMMISSI( X C g C v i c m Z m a a z CZ w c x m o m s z a z February 21, 1985 r m j City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Substitute Motion Sub. Motion Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Noes • Motion • that this application could set a precedent; and that there is currently adequate use of the subject property and that the current front yard setback line is satisfactory. Commissioner Goff opined that the proposal could be detrimental to the neighborhood. Commissioner Goff made a substitute motion for denial of Amendment No. 616. Commissioner Person advised that he will not support the substitute motion because a precedent will not be set due to the uniqueness of the parcel. Commissioner Turner cited that a precedent will not be set by approving the subject Amendment. Substitute motion was voted on,.MOTION DENIED. Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 616 with the findings in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. X1 I FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed bayside setback is consistent with the bayside setbacks required on the adjoin- ing properties to the east and west. 2. That the reduction of the required front yard setback on the subject properties will not result in the obstruction of any existing public views, and will not adversely impact existing private views across the subject property. 3. That reduction of the required front yard setback from 15 feet to . 0 feet, except for a triangular area in the northeast corner of the site measuring 35 feet along the bay and 18 feet along the easterly property line, will increase the buildable area of the subject property to a level which is consistent with the buildable area of other properties on Harbor Island. Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to approve Variance No. 1119, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Koppelman stated that she supports the original Variance requesting 7,950 sq. ft. because there would not be an obstruction of views and that there would be no damage to neighboring property owners. Commissioner Koppelman commended Mr. Bendetti for providing a substantial underground.parking area. C C February 21, 1985 MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I III I I INDEX • Ayes Noes x Motion Ayes x Noes C7 Commissioner Person confirmed with Mr. Hewicker, that if the Variance should be denied, the permitted floor area ratio of 2.0 times buildable area would allow 6,740 sq. ft. of floor area with the approval of Amendment No. 616. Commissioner Winburn stated that the approval of the Amendment would increase the permitted floor area by 1,800 sq. ft. Mr. Hewicker confirmed the statement by further stating that the Amendment will have to be approved by the City Council. Commissioner Person stated that he will not support the Variance for several reasons, including staff's findings and the Community Association's testimony. Commissioner Person further stated that he does not believe that turn - around space is necessary in the garage considering the location of the property. Commissioner Turner advised that he believes there is not a hardship on the applicant, and that the Automobiles can be driven straight in and out of the garage area, and that turn - around space is not necessary. Mr. Donald Webb, City Engineer, and Mr. Hewicker reviewed the revised garage plans that the applicant submitted. Chairman Winburn stated that she will not support the motion because the additional 1,800 sq. ft. of floor area provided by the approval of Amendment No. 616 will be adequate. In response to Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Hewicker stated that by not approving the Variance the applicant may build up to 6,740 sq. ft. including the garage with the approval of Amendment No. 616, and if the Variance is approved, the applicant..may build up to 7,550 sq. ft. of floor area including the garage. Motion voted on, MOTION DENIED. Commissioner Kurlander made a motion to deny Variance No. 1119, with the findings in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Hewicker stated that in accordance with the Planning Commission's action, the Amendment has been 7 R R C 0 O S c m °m i z C= a= N o L O m O City of Newport Beach __ - MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I III I I INDEX • Ayes Noes x Motion Ayes x Noes C7 Commissioner Person confirmed with Mr. Hewicker, that if the Variance should be denied, the permitted floor area ratio of 2.0 times buildable area would allow 6,740 sq. ft. of floor area with the approval of Amendment No. 616. Commissioner Winburn stated that the approval of the Amendment would increase the permitted floor area by 1,800 sq. ft. Mr. Hewicker confirmed the statement by further stating that the Amendment will have to be approved by the City Council. Commissioner Person stated that he will not support the Variance for several reasons, including staff's findings and the Community Association's testimony. Commissioner Person further stated that he does not believe that turn - around space is necessary in the garage considering the location of the property. Commissioner Turner advised that he believes there is not a hardship on the applicant, and that the Automobiles can be driven straight in and out of the garage area, and that turn - around space is not necessary. Mr. Donald Webb, City Engineer, and Mr. Hewicker reviewed the revised garage plans that the applicant submitted. Chairman Winburn stated that she will not support the motion because the additional 1,800 sq. ft. of floor area provided by the approval of Amendment No. 616 will be adequate. In response to Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Hewicker stated that by not approving the Variance the applicant may build up to 6,740 sq. ft. including the garage with the approval of Amendment No. 616, and if the Variance is approved, the applicant..may build up to 7,550 sq. ft. of floor area including the garage. Motion voted on, MOTION DENIED. Commissioner Kurlander made a motion to deny Variance No. 1119, with the findings in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Hewicker stated that in accordance with the Planning Commission's action, the Amendment has been 7 COMMISSIONERS C R C O = £ y C m v 7 m 2 Z m Z m 9 a Z Z 0 I l a m o, Z a z a s T m February 21, 1985 Of t Beach MINUTES ROLL CALLT I I I I I I I IINDEX • • recommended and for approval, appealed. FINDINGS: will automatically go to City Council and the Variance would have to be 1. That there are no 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 approval of Amendment No. 616 will increase the buildable area of the site to a level which is comparable to the buildable area of other lots on Harbor Island that are similar in size and shape to the subject property. 2. That the granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the permitted floor area is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the approval of Amendment No. 616 will reduce the required bayside setback so as to be consistent with the required bayside setback on the adjoining properties to the east and west. The reduction of the bayside setback from 15 feet to 0 feet across a substantial portion of the bayside property line also increases the buildable area of the site to permit construction of a home of a size comparable to the the size of. existing residences on Harbor Island. 3. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of .persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detri- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. A. General Plan Amendment 83 -1i Consideration of Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space 0 Item No.3 • • February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Marguerite Avenue, Fifth Avenue and Buck Gully Parcels; AND B. General Plan Amendment 83 -11 ..- - -- - -` Consideration of Amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Fifth Avenue /MacArthur Parcel. LOCATION: Marguerite Parcel (Jasmine Park): Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drives Fifth Avenue Parcel (Corona Del Mar Cottage Homes): Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully; Buck Gully: Northeasterly of Fifth Avenue and Poppy Avenue, between Harbor View Hills and the easterly City boundary. Fifth Avenue/MacArthur (Brisa Del Mar): Northeasterly of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway between Sea Lane and Fifth Avenue. ZONES: - R -1 -B and P -C INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Resubdivision No. 798 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing parcels of land containing 43.42 acres into four parcels for conveyance . purposes. LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 93, 95 and 96, Irvine`s Subdivision located at 875 Marguerite Avenue, on the southwesterly corner of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive and 3400 .Fifth Avenue, on the northeasterly side of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and the Newport Beach City limits, in Corona Del Mar. ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT:The Irvine Company, Newport Beach 9 INDEX [NW] 1 R798 Continued to Mar.7,1985 X F c O n f x c a s m z c m Z T z M r m = a = City of Newport Beach Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Marguerite Avenue, Fifth Avenue and Buck Gully Parcels; AND B. General Plan Amendment 83 -11 ..- - -- - -` Consideration of Amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Fifth Avenue /MacArthur Parcel. LOCATION: Marguerite Parcel (Jasmine Park): Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drives Fifth Avenue Parcel (Corona Del Mar Cottage Homes): Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully; Buck Gully: Northeasterly of Fifth Avenue and Poppy Avenue, between Harbor View Hills and the easterly City boundary. Fifth Avenue/MacArthur (Brisa Del Mar): Northeasterly of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway between Sea Lane and Fifth Avenue. ZONES: - R -1 -B and P -C INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Resubdivision No. 798 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide two existing parcels of land containing 43.42 acres into four parcels for conveyance . purposes. LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 93, 95 and 96, Irvine`s Subdivision located at 875 Marguerite Avenue, on the southwesterly corner of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive and 3400 .Fifth Avenue, on the northeasterly side of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and the Newport Beach City limits, in Corona Del Mar. ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT:The Irvine Company, Newport Beach 9 INDEX [NW] 1 R798 Continued to Mar.7,1985 • • C 0 February 21, 1985 OWNER: Same as applicant. ENGINEER: VTN Consolidated, Inc., Irvine Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, referred to a memorandum from the City Attorney's office, that discusses to what extent an EIR must include information regarding the impacts of other projects being processed contemporaneously with the project being analyzed in the EIR. Mr. Burnham stated that the question arose at the time the Irvine Company announced a proposal to apply to the City for additional development rights in. Newport Center and the area around Newport Center. Mr. Burnham advised that the staff has concluded that the Environmental Documents for the Fifth Avenue Parcels are adequate, and that the City is under no legal obligation to provide information regarding Newport Center as the City has not initiated the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Burnham further noted that should the City Council initiate the General Plan Amendment, the information which staff can currently provide on cumulative impacts can be included in the Fifth Avenue projects environmental documents as a response to comment. Mr. James Hewicker, Planning Director, informed the Planning Commission that letters and telegrams have been received regarding the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes development. Mr. Hewicker advised that the staff reports reflect questions and concerns that have been raised since the Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1985: a traffic analysis at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Poppy Avenue; the number of dwelling units that would have to be eliminated from the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes in order for the project to pass the requirements of TPO; and discussion of trip generation characteristics. Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Neish reviewed the proposals of The Irvine Company in reference to General Plan Amendment 83 -1(A) and General Plan Amendment 83 -1(D). Mr. Neish advised that because of the East Coast Highway and Poppy Avenue traffic analysis, and in order to pass the requirements of the TPO, that a reduction of 26 units from the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes from 80 units to 54 units'will be necessary.. Mr. Neish further advised Ea MINUTES R R C O O '! D x - y V 9 m z c m y q z c= 0 0 9 0 O 9 z A= M m City of Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant. ENGINEER: VTN Consolidated, Inc., Irvine Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, referred to a memorandum from the City Attorney's office, that discusses to what extent an EIR must include information regarding the impacts of other projects being processed contemporaneously with the project being analyzed in the EIR. Mr. Burnham stated that the question arose at the time the Irvine Company announced a proposal to apply to the City for additional development rights in. Newport Center and the area around Newport Center. Mr. Burnham advised that the staff has concluded that the Environmental Documents for the Fifth Avenue Parcels are adequate, and that the City is under no legal obligation to provide information regarding Newport Center as the City has not initiated the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Burnham further noted that should the City Council initiate the General Plan Amendment, the information which staff can currently provide on cumulative impacts can be included in the Fifth Avenue projects environmental documents as a response to comment. Mr. James Hewicker, Planning Director, informed the Planning Commission that letters and telegrams have been received regarding the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes development. Mr. Hewicker advised that the staff reports reflect questions and concerns that have been raised since the Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1985: a traffic analysis at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Poppy Avenue; the number of dwelling units that would have to be eliminated from the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes in order for the project to pass the requirements of TPO; and discussion of trip generation characteristics. Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Neish reviewed the proposals of The Irvine Company in reference to General Plan Amendment 83 -1(A) and General Plan Amendment 83 -1(D). Mr. Neish advised that because of the East Coast Highway and Poppy Avenue traffic analysis, and in order to pass the requirements of the TPO, that a reduction of 26 units from the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes from 80 units to 54 units'will be necessary.. Mr. Neish further advised Ea MINUTES ROLL MMISSIONERS I February 21, 1985 MINUTES that because of the unit reduction that a cost of each unit will have to be increased by $90,000.00 - from an average of $190,000. to $280,000. Mr. Neish stated that if The Irvine Company redesigned the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes from detached units to attached units that the project would pass the TPO. Mr. Neish cited that the Planning Commission could override the TPO by a required four /fifths vote by the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Neish responded that the increase of $90,000. was arrived at by multiplying $190,000. times 80 units, and dividing 54 units by the same cost factor, which would still include the same number of streets, sewers, and other development costs. Mr. .Neish advised that the $90,000. increase did not include the removal of two rows of lots. Mr. Neish further advised that The Irvine Company has tried to keep the project at under $200,000. per unit. A A Mr. Ed Williams, 105 No. Bayfront, Balboa Island, C O E • x r 9 m C Z c m A � ,q z a s Z a z r W x oppose low -cost housing. Mr. Williams informed the m s m m City of Newport Beach bond issue at no cost to the City, to purchase land that because of the unit reduction that a cost of each unit will have to be increased by $90,000.00 - from an average of $190,000. to $280,000. Mr. Neish stated that if The Irvine Company redesigned the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes from detached units to attached units that the project would pass the TPO. Mr. Neish cited that the Planning Commission could override the TPO by a required four /fifths vote by the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Neish responded that the increase of $90,000. was arrived at by multiplying $190,000. times 80 units, and dividing 54 units by the same cost factor, which would still include the same number of streets, sewers, and other development costs. Mr. .Neish advised that the $90,000. increase did not include the removal of two rows of lots. Mr. Neish further advised that The Irvine Company has tried to keep the project at under $200,000. per unit. Mrs. Lavena Hayton, 235 Poppy Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, and described the traffic congestion through Corona del Mar because of an accident on the San Diego Freeway, and the traffic impact such a tragedy can create through the area. Mr. John Clark, 3621 Seabreeze Lane, President of Harbor View Hills Homeowner's Association, appeared before the Planning Commission in regard to Corona del Mar Cottage Homes. Mr. Clark presented recommendations by the Homeowner's Association and the results of a survey that the Homeowner's Association conducted of Sandcastle Drive residents: 100% feel that some type of residential development will ultimately occur; . 778 are not opposed to some form of development (though not necessarily in favor of such); 11 Mr. Ed Williams, 105 No. Bayfront, Balboa Island, appeared before the Planning Commission, representing • Friends of OASIS, stated that OASIS opposes senior housing in Brisa del Mar, and that OASIS does not oppose low -cost housing. Mr. Williams informed the Planning Commission that OASIS is discussing floating a bond issue at no cost to the City, to purchase land adjacent to OASIS to develop specifically designed housing for senior citizens. Mrs. Lavena Hayton, 235 Poppy Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, and described the traffic congestion through Corona del Mar because of an accident on the San Diego Freeway, and the traffic impact such a tragedy can create through the area. Mr. John Clark, 3621 Seabreeze Lane, President of Harbor View Hills Homeowner's Association, appeared before the Planning Commission in regard to Corona del Mar Cottage Homes. Mr. Clark presented recommendations by the Homeowner's Association and the results of a survey that the Homeowner's Association conducted of Sandcastle Drive residents: 100% feel that some type of residential development will ultimately occur; . 778 are not opposed to some form of development (though not necessarily in favor of such); 11 February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES on Beach INDEX 958 are opposed to a change in current zoning; 1008 are opposed to a density of 9.8 units per buildable acre, 778 are in favor of a suitable Senior Citizens' housing concept; 898 are opposed to a high - density Senior Citizens' housing concept; initial sales price not less than $200,000 (preferable price range of $250,000 - $350,000. A C C O O S z c m> m z m L a z r 0 S C 2 O i 0 0 M m 0 m> M r Z x z z a a r m on Beach INDEX 958 are opposed to a change in current zoning; 1008 are opposed to a density of 9.8 units per buildable acre, 778 are in favor of a suitable Senior Citizens' housing concept; 898 are opposed to a high - density Senior Citizens' housing concept; initial sales price not less than $200,000 (preferable price range of $250,000 - $350,000. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker in reference to acceptable density, Mr. Clark responded that the main concern of the homeowners is the proposed high density and the. affordable housing of the area. Mr. Clark advised that the homeowners would not accept a senior citizens project of 9.8 times buildable acre but somewhere between 4.0 and 9.8 times buildable acre. Commissioner Eichenhofer queried how the homeowners would respond if there was no General Plan Amendment and there would be development in Buck Gully. Mr. Clark responded that the homeowners survey did not address Suck Gully. Ms. Jan Debay, 5107 seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, representing the Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee. Ms. Debay read a letter recommending the need for senior citizen housing which is affordable to older adults with fixed incomes. 12 Mr. Clark stated that the following concerns were also expressed by the homeowners: that roof heights not to exceed 12' to 16' maximum; opposition to black top construction alleys; roof materials of anything like an asphalt shingle; security /fencing problems between the two developments; style of architecture and building materials to be used; street lighting; adequate garaging; greenbelts; landscape and slope maintenance; . vehicular parking; trash containment; unsightly exterior modifications such as antennas, skylights, paint colors;. structural additions; and traffic congestion that will be created by the projects. Mr. Clark further suggested that the Homeowner's Association work with the developer in drafting acceptable Corona del Mar Cottage Homes CC &Rs. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker in reference to acceptable density, Mr. Clark responded that the main concern of the homeowners is the proposed high density and the. affordable housing of the area. Mr. Clark advised that the homeowners would not accept a senior citizens project of 9.8 times buildable acre but somewhere between 4.0 and 9.8 times buildable acre. Commissioner Eichenhofer queried how the homeowners would respond if there was no General Plan Amendment and there would be development in Buck Gully. Mr. Clark responded that the homeowners survey did not address Suck Gully. Ms. Jan Debay, 5107 seashore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, representing the Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee. Ms. Debay read a letter recommending the need for senior citizen housing which is affordable to older adults with fixed incomes. 12 February 21, 1985 MINUTES In response to Commissioner Eichenhofer's question regarding the interest of seniors in purchasing a dwelling in the Corona del Mar Cottage homes, Dr. Ross replied that the seniors are requesting housing specifically planned and designed for seniors. Dr. Ross informed Chairman Winburn that the idea of the seniors floating a bond recently came about because of the Brisa del Mar senior housing proposal, which OASIS is opposing. Mr. H. Ross Miller, 1627 Baycliff Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Miller cited that 1,000 senior citizens have moved into the area since 1980; that Brisa del Mar is a very poor location for senior housing; that if Corona del Mar Cottage homes would be constructed that there would not be any room for expansion of OASIS; that the present proposal would create more traffic; that views from Harbor View Hills 13 C R C O = k C V r 7 Z = N c ; O O 9 = M 9 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker informed Commissioner Turner that the size of a unit in the Lutheran Homes in Newport Beach are 600 sq. £t. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Eichenhofer and Commissioner Turner, Ms. Debay replied that because the senior population of Newport Beach is increasing, she is of the opinion that there is a need by seniors for smaller, low -cost senior housing units. Mr. Hewicker stated that there appears to be a demand for senior housing in the range of 400 sq. ft. to 600 sq. ft., one bedroom unit; however, Mr. Hewicker further stated that this type of senior housing is different than the project that OASIS is requesting which is in the range of 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,300 sq. ft. Chairman winburn informed Ms. Debay that the Lutheran Home is constructed at a density of 47.5 units per buildable acre. Dr. Brenda Ross, 10 Summerwind Court, OASIS Board of Directors, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. Ross stated that a survey of OASIS members was • taken two years ago and that one -third (1,000) members showed an interest in living in the area adjacent to OASIS - 60% would be interested in buying, and 40% would rent. Dr. Ross stated that the residents desire to remain in the area; that seniors living in the area would cut down on the traffic impact; that the seniors would be able to walk to the shopping area; and that the seniors would have convenient access to OASIS. In response to Commissioner Eichenhofer's question regarding the interest of seniors in purchasing a dwelling in the Corona del Mar Cottage homes, Dr. Ross replied that the seniors are requesting housing specifically planned and designed for seniors. Dr. Ross informed Chairman Winburn that the idea of the seniors floating a bond recently came about because of the Brisa del Mar senior housing proposal, which OASIS is opposing. Mr. H. Ross Miller, 1627 Baycliff Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Miller cited that 1,000 senior citizens have moved into the area since 1980; that Brisa del Mar is a very poor location for senior housing; that if Corona del Mar Cottage homes would be constructed that there would not be any room for expansion of OASIS; that the present proposal would create more traffic; that views from Harbor View Hills 13 February 21, 1985 COM MISSIONERS MINUTES of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Motion x -Sub. Motion Ayes Noes Ix 0 J would be affected; that Jasmine Park will create heavy traffic at the intersection of Marguerite and Fifth Avenue; and that Harbor View Hills homeowners have responded favorably to senior housing in the area. Mr. Miller commended the Planning staff's six recommendations in connection with rental procedures. Chairman Winburn made a motion to allow Mr. Miller to address the Planning Commission for an additional one and a half minutes. Commissioner Goff made a substitute motion to allow the speaker an additional three minutes as requested. The substitute motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Miller requested that the Planning Commission deny the senior housing portion of .Brisa del Mar; deny the proposed Corona del Mar Cottage homes; that The Irvine Company return with acceptable concept proposals to OASIS and the neighbors to the north and south of OASIS; that if The Irvine Company fails to return with a plan, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council to consider a revenue bond that would enable OASIS members to purchase adjacent property at the current market value, and that this property be under the sponsorship and control of OASIS. During a discussion with Commissioner Person, Mr. Miller stated that because of present property values in Newport Beach, many seniors have become affluent citizens. Mr. Miller commented that the seniors that live in Newport Beach at the poverty level either reside with their children or their children are paying the rent. Mr. Miller informed Commissioner Person that OASIS seniors are requesting a 900 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. 2 bedroom, 1 bath unit at 10.0 units per buildable acre. Mr. Miller further replied that in order to abide by the request of the Harbor View Hills Homeowner's Association that OASIS would be in agreement with the 9.8 units per buildable acre. Commissioner Turner asked Mr. Miller to explain the OASIS bonding procedure. Mr. Miller replied that the bond would be arranged by City government, as the City assisted Hoag Hospital; that the sale of the bonds would be guaranteed by the City at no cost to the City and held by security houses; that OASIS would purchase The Irvine Company land; that a property manager would be hired by OASIS; that bonds would be paid back and 14 )[ R n f z y v z c m> z W a a = r 0 I m o r M M m s a z a a T m of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Motion x -Sub. Motion Ayes Noes Ix 0 J would be affected; that Jasmine Park will create heavy traffic at the intersection of Marguerite and Fifth Avenue; and that Harbor View Hills homeowners have responded favorably to senior housing in the area. Mr. Miller commended the Planning staff's six recommendations in connection with rental procedures. Chairman Winburn made a motion to allow Mr. Miller to address the Planning Commission for an additional one and a half minutes. Commissioner Goff made a substitute motion to allow the speaker an additional three minutes as requested. The substitute motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Miller requested that the Planning Commission deny the senior housing portion of .Brisa del Mar; deny the proposed Corona del Mar Cottage homes; that The Irvine Company return with acceptable concept proposals to OASIS and the neighbors to the north and south of OASIS; that if The Irvine Company fails to return with a plan, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council to consider a revenue bond that would enable OASIS members to purchase adjacent property at the current market value, and that this property be under the sponsorship and control of OASIS. During a discussion with Commissioner Person, Mr. Miller stated that because of present property values in Newport Beach, many seniors have become affluent citizens. Mr. Miller commented that the seniors that live in Newport Beach at the poverty level either reside with their children or their children are paying the rent. Mr. Miller informed Commissioner Person that OASIS seniors are requesting a 900 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. 2 bedroom, 1 bath unit at 10.0 units per buildable acre. Mr. Miller further replied that in order to abide by the request of the Harbor View Hills Homeowner's Association that OASIS would be in agreement with the 9.8 units per buildable acre. Commissioner Turner asked Mr. Miller to explain the OASIS bonding procedure. Mr. Miller replied that the bond would be arranged by City government, as the City assisted Hoag Hospital; that the sale of the bonds would be guaranteed by the City at no cost to the City and held by security houses; that OASIS would purchase The Irvine Company land; that a property manager would be hired by OASIS; that bonds would be paid back and 14 February 21, 1985 MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX recharged by receipts of sale of homes and rents. Mr. Miller added that both sales and rentals of homes would be necessary to complete the area as a full -scale senior center. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Burnham stated that he does not know of a bonding program for housing in the $200,000. range. Mr. Burnham further stated that there was no guarantee by the City or no monies involved relative to Hoag Hospital. Mr. Miller commented that the 3,500 influential and wealthy members of OASIS are considering the idea if The Irvine Company declines to build senior housing east of OASIS. R R Commissioner Eichenhofer stated that she was not.aware C O A of any expansion plans by the City or OASIS and asked = y S 7 m z c m z m z 0 z C 2 M w o 9 0 0 to expand OASIS or to study expansion of OASIS. Mr. • 9= a City of Newport Beach z s considered the Amendment to The Open Space and ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX recharged by receipts of sale of homes and rents. Mr. Miller added that both sales and rentals of homes would be necessary to complete the area as a full -scale senior center. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Burnham stated that he does not know of a bonding program for housing in the $200,000. range. Mr. Burnham further stated that there was no guarantee by the City or no monies involved relative to Hoag Hospital. Mr. Miller commented that the 3,500 influential and wealthy members of OASIS are considering the idea if The Irvine Company declines to build senior housing east of OASIS. Commissioner Eichenhofer asked if there would be any enroachment in the present parking area at OASIS. Mr. Webb replied that the proposed plans currently show that the OASIS entranceway would become a street., and for that reason there could be additional parking space for OASIS members if they would choose to park on either side of the street. Mr. Hewicker commented that there is no guarantee that the OASIS parking area would not be used by others. 111111 i Mr. Weston Pringle, traffic consultant, appeared before I the Planning Commission. Mr. Pringle stated that a 15 Commissioner Eichenhofer stated that she was not.aware of any expansion plans by the City or OASIS and asked Mr. Hewicker for further explanation. Mr. Hewicker replied that he is not aware of any plans by the City to expand OASIS or to study expansion of OASIS. Mr. • Hewicker cited that at the time the City Council considered the Amendment to The Open Space and Recreation Element of the General Plan, that one of the items was to designate the area northerly of OASIS for open space and future expansion of the OASIS facility. Mr. Hewicker cited that representatives from OASIS attended the City Council meeting and opposed the recommendation to set that land aside for expansion, that the members felt that if City Council approved the area north of OASIS that the area to the east of OASIS may not be approved. Mr. Hewicker further stated that The Irvine Company has done a feasibility study for the future use of the OASIS property. Commissioner Eichenhofer asked if there would be any enroachment in the present parking area at OASIS. Mr. Webb replied that the proposed plans currently show that the OASIS entranceway would become a street., and for that reason there could be additional parking space for OASIS members if they would choose to park on either side of the street. Mr. Hewicker commented that there is no guarantee that the OASIS parking area would not be used by others. 111111 i Mr. Weston Pringle, traffic consultant, appeared before I the Planning Commission. Mr. Pringle stated that a 15 February 21, 1985 MINUTES ROLL CALL T I I I I i I I I INDEX study that was conducted at Rossmoor, Leisure World, showed that there was an average of 4 to 5 trips per day for senior - occupied housing, depending upon the activity level of the.seniors. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Bud Desenberg, 500 "I" Street, Balboa, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Desenberg stated that the Newport Beach senior citizens would be interested in the results of a study relative to the following questions: 1. How many seniors are in Newport Beach, their ages and future population projections? 2. Do seniors live alone, in couples, or with families? Do they live in single residences or apartment dwellings? 3. Income level. 4. What kind of living unit can seniors afford? 5. Do seniors wish to buy or rent? 6. How much living area do they want and need? 7. Special living needs for 65 and over. 8. Are there special health problems requiring special accommodation? 9. What are their transportation needs? One or two cars? Do they have other transportation? Do they walk easily? 10. What are their shopping needs? Which area services this? 11. What are their social and recreational needs? Where can they be met? 12. Do they use the facilities at OASIS? Are these helpful? 13. Would they buy or rent senior housing on the 16 acres east of.OASIS? 16 xx c o x z c m z z M I= W o x O r O m = x = City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL T I I I I i I I I INDEX study that was conducted at Rossmoor, Leisure World, showed that there was an average of 4 to 5 trips per day for senior - occupied housing, depending upon the activity level of the.seniors. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Bud Desenberg, 500 "I" Street, Balboa, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Desenberg stated that the Newport Beach senior citizens would be interested in the results of a study relative to the following questions: 1. How many seniors are in Newport Beach, their ages and future population projections? 2. Do seniors live alone, in couples, or with families? Do they live in single residences or apartment dwellings? 3. Income level. 4. What kind of living unit can seniors afford? 5. Do seniors wish to buy or rent? 6. How much living area do they want and need? 7. Special living needs for 65 and over. 8. Are there special health problems requiring special accommodation? 9. What are their transportation needs? One or two cars? Do they have other transportation? Do they walk easily? 10. What are their shopping needs? Which area services this? 11. What are their social and recreational needs? Where can they be met? 12. Do they use the facilities at OASIS? Are these helpful? 13. Would they buy or rent senior housing on the 16 acres east of.OASIS? 16 I" February 21, 1985 MINUTES Ms. Alice Remer, 210 Goldenrod, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Remer stated that she approves of senior .housing adjacent to OASIS. Ms. Remer referred to the staff report's comment that Brisa del Mar is a preferable location for senior housing because of the close proximity to the transportation system. Ms. Remer stated that seniors are capable of walking four to five blocks. Ms. Remer commented that low cost housing is needed, and that low cost housing would generate fewer automobiles than more costly senior units as the more affluent residents would have more automobiles. Ms. Remer stated that the The Irvine Company should be encouraged to build senior housing adjacent to OASIS. Mr. Dick Nichols, President of Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichols presented the homeowners' opinions of deficiencies in the traffic analysis study and the traffic impact of intersections throughout the old Corona del Mar area; the Brisa del Mar zoning area and the senior citizen count; and the Jasmine Park open space area as an area for a park. Motion x I I I I I I Chairman winburn made a motion to approve Mr. Nichols All Ayes an additional three minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Nichols further commented regarding the concerns of the intersection of Sandcastle Drive and Marguerite, and the 15 foot setback along Marguerite; that the area northerly of OASIS would not be acceptable as a future expansion for a parking area; that an area at Narcissus and Fifth Avenue be dedicated; that the senior housing be available at market value adjacent to OASIS; reasonable zoning setbacks be met; and that there is no reason for Buck Gully be made recreational. Mr. Hewicker advised that staff will be making a comment regarding the setbacks on Fifth Avenue and Marguerite. Mr. Keith Kuzak, 966 Sandcastle Dr., appeared before the Planning Commission, stating his concerns that the citizens have not fully expressed their negative feelings regarding high density; that housing costs I I I I I I I should not be an issue; the traffic impact at Marguerite and Sandcastle Drive; that two -story homes 17 a x c O = c m z z o m M C= 0 z o; O M > O m City of Newport Beach M a _ Ms. Alice Remer, 210 Goldenrod, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Remer stated that she approves of senior .housing adjacent to OASIS. Ms. Remer referred to the staff report's comment that Brisa del Mar is a preferable location for senior housing because of the close proximity to the transportation system. Ms. Remer stated that seniors are capable of walking four to five blocks. Ms. Remer commented that low cost housing is needed, and that low cost housing would generate fewer automobiles than more costly senior units as the more affluent residents would have more automobiles. Ms. Remer stated that the The Irvine Company should be encouraged to build senior housing adjacent to OASIS. Mr. Dick Nichols, President of Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichols presented the homeowners' opinions of deficiencies in the traffic analysis study and the traffic impact of intersections throughout the old Corona del Mar area; the Brisa del Mar zoning area and the senior citizen count; and the Jasmine Park open space area as an area for a park. Motion x I I I I I I Chairman winburn made a motion to approve Mr. Nichols All Ayes an additional three minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Nichols further commented regarding the concerns of the intersection of Sandcastle Drive and Marguerite, and the 15 foot setback along Marguerite; that the area northerly of OASIS would not be acceptable as a future expansion for a parking area; that an area at Narcissus and Fifth Avenue be dedicated; that the senior housing be available at market value adjacent to OASIS; reasonable zoning setbacks be met; and that there is no reason for Buck Gully be made recreational. Mr. Hewicker advised that staff will be making a comment regarding the setbacks on Fifth Avenue and Marguerite. Mr. Keith Kuzak, 966 Sandcastle Dr., appeared before the Planning Commission, stating his concerns that the citizens have not fully expressed their negative feelings regarding high density; that housing costs I I I I I I I should not be an issue; the traffic impact at Marguerite and Sandcastle Drive; that two -story homes 17 February 21, 1985 COM MISSIONERS MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX cannot be built on Sandcastle Drive but two -story homes will be allowed in the proposed project; and that there is no guarantee of the view that Sandcastle Drive residents will have if the proposed Corona del Mar Cottage homes project is approved. Mr. Gene Lyons, 1014 Sea Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission expressing three areas of concern: Brisa del Mar density; traffic in the Brisa del Mar area; and the traffic in the entire Corona del Mar area. Mr. Lyons recommended that no development be approved until the Pelican Hills Road and the Avocado couplet be developed. W X ... Mr. Paul Johnson, 1425 Santanella Terrace, appeared C O before the Planning Commission, as a developer in retirement housing. Mr. Johnson suggested that the y S 7 Corona del Mar Cottage Homes be reconsidered as a special site for three or four levels of senior citizen X C = M W o 9 O O care, that it is inappropriate to mix senior citizens 1= 9 o 'M City of Newport Beach • a Mar project. Mr. Johnson recommended that single -story ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX cannot be built on Sandcastle Drive but two -story homes will be allowed in the proposed project; and that there is no guarantee of the view that Sandcastle Drive residents will have if the proposed Corona del Mar Cottage homes project is approved. Mr. Gene Lyons, 1014 Sea Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission expressing three areas of concern: Brisa del Mar density; traffic in the Brisa del Mar area; and the traffic in the entire Corona del Mar area. Mr. Lyons recommended that no development be approved until the Pelican Hills Road and the Avocado couplet be developed. In response to an inquiry regarding density, Mr. Johnson stated that in order to provide complete senior citizen needs that a density of 20 to 30 units per buildable acre would be appropriate. In reply to Commissioner Turner, Mr. Johnson stated that he is presently developing 190 units on a 3.5 acre parcel in Fountain Valley including a transportation system, a dining facility and other service needs. Mr. Johnson responded to a question posed by Commissioner Person regarding a suggested density of 20 to 30 buildable acre between a density of 4.0 buildable acre in Harbor view Hills and old Corona del Mar's 29.0 buildable acre. Mr. Johnson explained that the density of senior housing would not affect the community as the senior citizens would remain within their own self- contained community. Mr. Johnson stated that the advantage of the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes area is ! M i- Mr. Paul Johnson, 1425 Santanella Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission, as a developer in retirement housing. Mr. Johnson suggested that the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes be reconsidered as a special site for three or four levels of senior citizen care, that it is inappropriate to mix senior citizens with multi- family units as proposed in the Brisa del • Mar project. Mr. Johnson recommended that single -story housing be considered in addition to special dining, recreation and transportation facilities. Mr. Johnson stated that there would be higher density, however the seniors do very little driving, and further stated that he will be utilizing a mini -bus at his new retirement development. In response to an inquiry regarding density, Mr. Johnson stated that in order to provide complete senior citizen needs that a density of 20 to 30 units per buildable acre would be appropriate. In reply to Commissioner Turner, Mr. Johnson stated that he is presently developing 190 units on a 3.5 acre parcel in Fountain Valley including a transportation system, a dining facility and other service needs. Mr. Johnson responded to a question posed by Commissioner Person regarding a suggested density of 20 to 30 buildable acre between a density of 4.0 buildable acre in Harbor view Hills and old Corona del Mar's 29.0 buildable acre. Mr. Johnson explained that the density of senior housing would not affect the community as the senior citizens would remain within their own self- contained community. Mr. Johnson stated that the advantage of the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes area is ! M i- February 21, 1985 MINUTES Mr. Johnson replied to a question posed. by Commissioner Koppelman that the Fountain Valley project has received an inducement letter for mortgage revenue bond financing from the City of Fountain Valley and County of Orange, and that he has not made a decision to finance the project under bond financing. Mr. Dick Russell, 888 Sandcastle Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission stating that he would be in favor of OASIS members purchasing the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes land area and he is of the opinion that the majority of the homeowners would favor senior citizen housing. Mr. Russell stated that he objects to the proposed two -story homes because he would lose privacy within his own home; that by looking down on asphalt alleys there would be a decrease of value in his property; that he would lose his view from his window seats; that The Irvine Company had informed Sandcastle Drive residents that the traffic generation of the proposed project would be 10 to 12 trips per unit; and that the City should enforce the low density zoning. 60: x x Co f y a> v m M= N o ;oa Z Z m > m City f Newport Beach Y p ROLL CALL INDEX the close proximity to OASIS. Mr. Johnson cited that the current project he is constructing, including three meals a day, will be provided at a cost of less than $1,000, a month. Mr. Johnson further recommended the possibility of two additional phases of senior housing: a two -story facility including elevators that would be provided for seniors that are ambulatory but move slower, and a convalescent care center. Mr. Johnson cited that the difference between this type of facility in comparison with others is that there is no entrance fee, and that the facility is not government subsidized. Mr. Johnson further stated that OASIS citizens are not concerned with affordable housing but a high quality senior center. In response to a question 'posed by Mr. Burnham, Mr. Johnson replied that the Fountain Valley senior housing site is zoned for commercial and not residential use. Commissioner Turner inquired if a senior housing facility as suggested by Mr. Johnson could be built under a height limit of 29 feet. Mr. Johnson replied that the height would be determined by the cost of the Corona del Mar property in order to make a profit. Mr. Johnson replied to a question posed. by Commissioner Koppelman that the Fountain Valley project has received an inducement letter for mortgage revenue bond financing from the City of Fountain Valley and County of Orange, and that he has not made a decision to finance the project under bond financing. Mr. Dick Russell, 888 Sandcastle Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission stating that he would be in favor of OASIS members purchasing the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes land area and he is of the opinion that the majority of the homeowners would favor senior citizen housing. Mr. Russell stated that he objects to the proposed two -story homes because he would lose privacy within his own home; that by looking down on asphalt alleys there would be a decrease of value in his property; that he would lose his view from his window seats; that The Irvine Company had informed Sandcastle Drive residents that the traffic generation of the proposed project would be 10 to 12 trips per unit; and that the City should enforce the low density zoning. 60: MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I 1 I I I I I INDEX Chairman Winburn indicated that due to the late hour and the type of testimony received, that any additional testimony on Items No. 5, 6, and 7 would be taken by the Planning Commission at this time. A. Amendment No. 614 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for the development of Corona Del Mar Cottage Homes Planned Community District. The proposal also includes a request to amend portions of Districting Maps No. 32 and No. 51, so as to reclassify said property from the R -1 -B District to. the Planned Community District; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND • B. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study for an 80 unit single family residential development. AND 11949 (Continued Public Request to subdivide two existing parcels of land, containing 16.06 acres, into 80 numbered lots for single family detached residential development; two lettered lots for public park purposes; two lettered lots for private open space purposes; and three lettered lots for public alley purposes. The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of interior lots which are less than 50 feet wide and less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area and corner lots which are less than 60 feet wide and less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area. LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 95 and 96, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3400 Fifth Avenue, on the northeasterly side of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and the Newport Beach City limits, in Corona Del Mar. Item No.5 I Amendment No. 614 Denied Traffic Study Denied TTM 11949 Denied February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS A A c O o £ x . z c C m A z a A a z r o x City 1= 9 z A a om m of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I 1 I I I I I INDEX Chairman Winburn indicated that due to the late hour and the type of testimony received, that any additional testimony on Items No. 5, 6, and 7 would be taken by the Planning Commission at this time. A. Amendment No. 614 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for the development of Corona Del Mar Cottage Homes Planned Community District. The proposal also includes a request to amend portions of Districting Maps No. 32 and No. 51, so as to reclassify said property from the R -1 -B District to. the Planned Community District; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND • B. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study for an 80 unit single family residential development. AND 11949 (Continued Public Request to subdivide two existing parcels of land, containing 16.06 acres, into 80 numbered lots for single family detached residential development; two lettered lots for public park purposes; two lettered lots for private open space purposes; and three lettered lots for public alley purposes. The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of interior lots which are less than 50 feet wide and less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area and corner lots which are less than 60 feet wide and less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area. LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 95 and 96, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3400 Fifth Avenue, on the northeasterly side of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and the Newport Beach City limits, in Corona Del Mar. Item No.5 I Amendment No. 614 Denied Traffic Study Denied TTM 11949 Denied ROLL • February 21, 1985 ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT: Bren Company, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Adams Streeter, Irvine A. Amendment No. 615 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for the development of the Jasmine Park Planned Community District. The proposal also includes a request to amend a portion of .Districting Map No. 32, so as to reclassify said property from the R -1 -B District to the Planned Community District and the establishment of specific setbacks adjacent to Jasmine Creek; and the acceptance of an environmental document. � Illlllll AND B. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study for a 47 unit single family residential development. FIX 12245 (Continued Public Request to subdivide two existing parcels of land con- taining 9.6t acres into 47 numbered lots for single family attached residential development; one numbered lot for private recreational purposes; one numbered lot for private open space purposes; and one numbered lot for public park purposes, on property located in the R -1 -B District (proposed to be rezoned to P -C). The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of interior lots which are less than 50 feet wide and less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area and corner lots which are less than 60 feet wide and less than 5,600 sq.ft. in area. 21 MINUTES Item No.6 Amendment No. 615 Approved Traffic Study Approved TTM 12245 Approved �o z - y r v m z c m o m a M C z w e L 0 m 0 = w m City of Newport Beach a a _ ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT: Bren Company, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Adams Streeter, Irvine A. Amendment No. 615 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for the development of the Jasmine Park Planned Community District. The proposal also includes a request to amend a portion of .Districting Map No. 32, so as to reclassify said property from the R -1 -B District to the Planned Community District and the establishment of specific setbacks adjacent to Jasmine Creek; and the acceptance of an environmental document. � Illlllll AND B. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study for a 47 unit single family residential development. FIX 12245 (Continued Public Request to subdivide two existing parcels of land con- taining 9.6t acres into 47 numbered lots for single family attached residential development; one numbered lot for private recreational purposes; one numbered lot for private open space purposes; and one numbered lot for public park purposes, on property located in the R -1 -B District (proposed to be rezoned to P -C). The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of interior lots which are less than 50 feet wide and less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area and corner lots which are less than 60 feet wide and less than 5,600 sq.ft. in area. 21 MINUTES Item No.6 Amendment No. 615 Approved Traffic Study Approved TTM 12245 Approved February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES )t F C O i a • = c m j A as a zr c� M o ms r' Z a z a z M Of t Beach ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX LOCATION: Portion of Blocks 93 and 96, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 875 Marguerite Avenue, on the southwesterly corner of Marguerite. Avenue and Harbor View Drive, in Harbor View. ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT:LDM Development, Inc., Laguna Hills OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: VTN Consolidated, Irvine A. Amendment No. 612 (Continued.Public Hearing) Request to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for the development of the Brisa Del Mar Planned is Community District. The proposal also includes a request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 32 so as reclassify a portion of the subject property from the C -1 District to the Planned Community District and the acceptance of an environmental document. B. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study for a 96 unit res- idential condominium development. MP C. Tentative Map of Tract No. 12209 (Continued Public v ------ I Request to subdivide three existing parcels of land and a portion of vacated 5th Avenue containing 6.63 acres, into a single lot for residential condominium development for property located in the P -C District. LOCATION: A portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision; a portion of Lots No. 1 and 2, Block K, Tract No. 470; and a vacated portion of Fifth • Avenue, located at 6000 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway, in Corona Del Mar. 22 Item No.7 Amendment No. 612 Denied Traffic Study TTM 12209 Denied February 21, 1985 ZONES: P -C and C -1 APPLICANT: Irvine Pacific, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: John G. Goetten, Santa Ana Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc., appeared before the Planning Commission, representing The Irvine Company. Mr. Neish stated that The Irvine Company wants to work with OASIS, that two years ago when a similar plan came before the City, that The Irvine Company was requested to provide senior and affordable housing. Mr. Neish further stated that in order to do so this would require higher density and that georgraphically The Irvine Company felt that the best site would be at Brisa del Mar. . Mr. Neish described Corona del Mar Cottage Homes as 80 detached dwellings at 9.8 units per buildable acre compared to old Corona del Mar's 24.0 units per buildable acre and Harbor View Hills' 2.5 to 4.0 units per buildable acre. The proposed development would be constructed on 35 foot wide lots compared to 30 foot wide lots in old Corona del Mar with one unit to be allowed per lot. Mr. Neish stated that The Irvine Company is proposing to dedicate the area north of OASIS to the City, that this area would be flattened and a retaining wall would be constructed. Mr. Neish cited that a feasibility study was done to project the best utilization of the property and the result was four different plans. The plans vary from an increase of 16,400 sq. ft. to 19,000 sq. ft. above the current 16,000 sq. ft. There are currently 54 on -site parking spaces, the four plans vary from 188 on -site parking spaces to 200 on -site parking spaces. Mr. Neish summarized these figures by stating that this strip of land could be developed to twice the amount of the present square footage and three to four times the present on -site parking. Mr. Neish cited that the proposed Corona del Mar Cottage Homes are designed with four different floor • plans varying from 1,200 sq. ft. to 1,800 sq. ft.; 34 single -story dwellings and 46 two -story dwellings; wood shake or tile roofs; the average market price would be $190,000.00. 23 MINUTES INDEX xR c O � x H a r 9 m i s m o m z C z Z Z w Z o 9 O O m a a� City of Newport Beach ZONES: P -C and C -1 APPLICANT: Irvine Pacific, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: John G. Goetten, Santa Ana Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc., appeared before the Planning Commission, representing The Irvine Company. Mr. Neish stated that The Irvine Company wants to work with OASIS, that two years ago when a similar plan came before the City, that The Irvine Company was requested to provide senior and affordable housing. Mr. Neish further stated that in order to do so this would require higher density and that georgraphically The Irvine Company felt that the best site would be at Brisa del Mar. . Mr. Neish described Corona del Mar Cottage Homes as 80 detached dwellings at 9.8 units per buildable acre compared to old Corona del Mar's 24.0 units per buildable acre and Harbor View Hills' 2.5 to 4.0 units per buildable acre. The proposed development would be constructed on 35 foot wide lots compared to 30 foot wide lots in old Corona del Mar with one unit to be allowed per lot. Mr. Neish stated that The Irvine Company is proposing to dedicate the area north of OASIS to the City, that this area would be flattened and a retaining wall would be constructed. Mr. Neish cited that a feasibility study was done to project the best utilization of the property and the result was four different plans. The plans vary from an increase of 16,400 sq. ft. to 19,000 sq. ft. above the current 16,000 sq. ft. There are currently 54 on -site parking spaces, the four plans vary from 188 on -site parking spaces to 200 on -site parking spaces. Mr. Neish summarized these figures by stating that this strip of land could be developed to twice the amount of the present square footage and three to four times the present on -site parking. Mr. Neish cited that the proposed Corona del Mar Cottage Homes are designed with four different floor • plans varying from 1,200 sq. ft. to 1,800 sq. ft.; 34 single -story dwellings and 46 two -story dwellings; wood shake or tile roofs; the average market price would be $190,000.00. 23 MINUTES INDEX MINUTES Beach Mr. Neish stated that the reason for the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes concept is because the proposed development would be centered between Harbor View Hills low density to old Corona del Mar's high density and that The Irvine Company believes that a density of 9.8 is fair and reasonable, and will still maintain a housing product in the $200,000. range. Mr. Neish further explained that the traffic circulation system includes a series of cul -de -sacs that would extend in a northerly direction, and that the cul -de -sacs would be supplemented by a 20 -foot wide concrete alley system. The trash enclosures and alleys would be landscaped and the project would be maintained and enforced by the Community Association. Mr. Neish displayed exhibits from four different view sites on Sandcastle Drive, and explained how the development would not obstruct views. Mr. Neish confirmed Mr. Hewicker's question that from Sandcastle Drive that the unobstructed views would be from a standing eye view. Mr. Neish advised that The Irvine Company has committed to re- design Lot No. 80 in order to preserve a view corridor from Fifth Avenue. Ms. Patricia Temple advised that the required side yard setbacks are 4 feet on either side, and the proposed project is a zero lot line approach which would result in a minimum of 8 feet between the units. Mr. Hewicker stated that there may be a possibility that residents sitting inside the living areas may not be able to see a view, that the resident may have to go out onto the patio for the view. Mr. Neish replied that The Irvine Company was requested to preserve an ocean view from a requested measurement which is what has been done. Mr. Neish further stated that from the proposed project that it would be impossible for those residents to look into the Sandcastle Drive living area. Commissioner Turner stated that the proposed plans are designed at a 4 percent slope into the street, which is roughly a 15 foot differential. Commissioner Turner asked that if a 2 percent slope would be acceptable to the City, how much would that lower the height of the • development? Mr. Webb replied that the City would accept a 2 percent slope and by removing the dirt there would be a substantial difference in the height of the houses. 24 February 21, 1985 COM MISSIONNERS X C 0 n c m i Z T m a Z m ` = a N p Z r 0 ° ; p �+ I p T City of Neer i Z a = ms y= a m MINUTES Beach Mr. Neish stated that the reason for the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes concept is because the proposed development would be centered between Harbor View Hills low density to old Corona del Mar's high density and that The Irvine Company believes that a density of 9.8 is fair and reasonable, and will still maintain a housing product in the $200,000. range. Mr. Neish further explained that the traffic circulation system includes a series of cul -de -sacs that would extend in a northerly direction, and that the cul -de -sacs would be supplemented by a 20 -foot wide concrete alley system. The trash enclosures and alleys would be landscaped and the project would be maintained and enforced by the Community Association. Mr. Neish displayed exhibits from four different view sites on Sandcastle Drive, and explained how the development would not obstruct views. Mr. Neish confirmed Mr. Hewicker's question that from Sandcastle Drive that the unobstructed views would be from a standing eye view. Mr. Neish advised that The Irvine Company has committed to re- design Lot No. 80 in order to preserve a view corridor from Fifth Avenue. Ms. Patricia Temple advised that the required side yard setbacks are 4 feet on either side, and the proposed project is a zero lot line approach which would result in a minimum of 8 feet between the units. Mr. Hewicker stated that there may be a possibility that residents sitting inside the living areas may not be able to see a view, that the resident may have to go out onto the patio for the view. Mr. Neish replied that The Irvine Company was requested to preserve an ocean view from a requested measurement which is what has been done. Mr. Neish further stated that from the proposed project that it would be impossible for those residents to look into the Sandcastle Drive living area. Commissioner Turner stated that the proposed plans are designed at a 4 percent slope into the street, which is roughly a 15 foot differential. Commissioner Turner asked that if a 2 percent slope would be acceptable to the City, how much would that lower the height of the • development? Mr. Webb replied that the City would accept a 2 percent slope and by removing the dirt there would be a substantial difference in the height of the houses. 24 February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Turner inquired how the project would be affected if the fences would be set back 5 feet from the concrete alleys, and the alleys would be landscaped and security lighted, possibly resulting into mini - streets? Mr. Webb advised that if the site would be lowered four feet and approximately 100,000 to 110,000 yards of dirt would be removed. Mr. Neish confirmed that a 5 foot fence set back from the alleys would be acceptable to The Irvine Company. Mr. Neish advised that The Bren Company has committed to a row of housing east of Narcissus of the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes to be available to seniors for a period of time of 90 days upon issuance of occupancy permits. In the event the project would be phased into two segments, the same kind of commitment would be made . in Phase Two. Mr. Neish explained that this proposal would allow the seniors to be in close proximity to OASIS and there would not be the same restrictions of the affordable housing of Brisa del Mar. Mr. Neish presented Brisa del Mar as 96 units, 84 of these units would be affordable. The units would vary in size from 650 sq. ft. to 975 sq. ft. The Irvine Companv is recommending that seniors be considered 55 years of age and older. Mr. Hewicker stated that he was advised that The Irvine Company and Irvine Pacific had conducted a marketing study to design the Brisa del Mar project for the senior citizen units. Mr. Hewicker inquired if The Irvine Company would be in a position to answer any of the 13 questions that were presented to the City by Mr. Desenberg earlier in the evening. Mr. Neish replied that The Irvine Company was trying to market with the mix of seniors and affordable housing and a density of 16.0 buildable acre and to provide as many units as possible. Mr. Neish cited that The Irvine Company is now realizing that the numerous Newport Beach seniors appear to be more affluent than projected and many may not qualify for the Brisa del Mar project. • 1111 1111 Mr. Brad Olson representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission stating that 25 xx c O � x z c m m z m M = 9 s City of Beach Newport INDEX Commissioner Turner inquired how the project would be affected if the fences would be set back 5 feet from the concrete alleys, and the alleys would be landscaped and security lighted, possibly resulting into mini - streets? Mr. Webb advised that if the site would be lowered four feet and approximately 100,000 to 110,000 yards of dirt would be removed. Mr. Neish confirmed that a 5 foot fence set back from the alleys would be acceptable to The Irvine Company. Mr. Neish advised that The Bren Company has committed to a row of housing east of Narcissus of the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes to be available to seniors for a period of time of 90 days upon issuance of occupancy permits. In the event the project would be phased into two segments, the same kind of commitment would be made . in Phase Two. Mr. Neish explained that this proposal would allow the seniors to be in close proximity to OASIS and there would not be the same restrictions of the affordable housing of Brisa del Mar. Mr. Neish presented Brisa del Mar as 96 units, 84 of these units would be affordable. The units would vary in size from 650 sq. ft. to 975 sq. ft. The Irvine Companv is recommending that seniors be considered 55 years of age and older. Mr. Hewicker stated that he was advised that The Irvine Company and Irvine Pacific had conducted a marketing study to design the Brisa del Mar project for the senior citizen units. Mr. Hewicker inquired if The Irvine Company would be in a position to answer any of the 13 questions that were presented to the City by Mr. Desenberg earlier in the evening. Mr. Neish replied that The Irvine Company was trying to market with the mix of seniors and affordable housing and a density of 16.0 buildable acre and to provide as many units as possible. Mr. Neish cited that The Irvine Company is now realizing that the numerous Newport Beach seniors appear to be more affluent than projected and many may not qualify for the Brisa del Mar project. • 1111 1111 Mr. Brad Olson representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission stating that 25 February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 7 R c O x z c m o m z Z Z M Z T m City of Newport Beach C Z m a Z O O M a ROLL CALL INDEX The Irvine Company has been researching senior housing and needs. Mr. Olson advised that the seniors that the Brisa del Mar project was designed for are the active seniors in the age span of 55 years to 65 years, that there is a need for this large and fast growing group of seniors. The Irvine Company is aware of senior housing for the inactive seniors but chose not to develop this type of housing in the Corona del Mar area. Mr. Olson further stated that upon staff's request, the Brisa del Mar project has been redesigned with many senior appointments. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Olson replied that a marketing analysis that would be able to answer the previously stated 13 questions has not been written, however there have been other senior citizen presentations made to The Irvine Company. Mr. H. Ross Miller, appeared before the Planning • Commission stating that seniors would not purchase the row of homes on Narcissus proposed by The Bren Company because they are not specifically designed for seniors. Mr. Miller further stated that OASIS opposes the dedication north of their property. Mr. Ed Williams, appeared before the Planning Commission presenting reasons why the area north of OASIS would not be practical for expansion: that the parking lot would be graded on a hill and the seniors would have difficulty getting in and out of an automobile; that the driveway is planned to come out onto Marguerite; and that one of the proposed plans includes rooms that .could not be utilized as class rooms. Mr. William Cull appeared before the Planning Commission opposing two -story houses and traffic in the Corona del Mar project. Mr. Dick Nichols appeared before the Planning Commission opposing the appearance of the parking and garage area of Brisa del Mar by the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Ty Camaras, 932 Sandcastle Dr., appeared before the Planning Commission stating his concern about what traffic impact the proposed three projects will create in the area and Mr. Camaras recommended that Jasmine Park only be considered for development at this time. Oil ROLL February 21, 1985 MINUTES The public hearing was closed at this time. Patricia Temple informed the Planning Commission that there is a required 15 foot setback on Marguerite Avenue of the Jasmine Park project. Ms. Temple further stated that the units proposed range from a 40 foot setback to approximately 80 feet. The setback area will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Ms. Temple stated that the fence will be no more than 30 inches in height, that the fencing along Sandcastle Drive will be of open construction, and that the landscaping will abide by the height limit. Chairman Winburn recommended that the Planning Commission take a straw vote of General Plan Amendment No. 83 -1(A). Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would be in favor of a final vote. Commissioner Goff stated that he would be in favor of a straw vote in the event that members of the Planning Commission would decide to review the other Planning Commissioners • testimony given at the time of the straw vote. Commissioner Person stated that he would be in favor of a straw vote with the option to vote whether to make the straw vote final. Chairman Winburn stated that straw votes would be taken of General Plan Amendment 83 -1(A) divided into three parcels: Marguerite Avenue (Jasmine Park Parcel); Fifth Avenue (Corona del Mar Cottage Homes); and Buck Gully Parcel. Commissioner Goff stated that because of the traffic problem in Corona del Mar, and the proposed projects increased density, increased traffic and the possible increase in traffic problems that he will not be supporting 83 -1A or any element therein. Commissioner koppelman stated that because Corona del Mar is geographically situated between the proposed Downcoast and Newport Center developments, and the present traffic situation on East Coast Highway and the flower streets in Corona del Mar is critical, and changing the residential from low density to medium density, the planned deficiency in traffic will become more deficient. Commissioner Koppelman further stated • that there has been no true commitment to senior 27 A C C O O S - _ v A ; m z c m z a m m z r a x z a= M y� m City of Newport Beach sa _ The public hearing was closed at this time. Patricia Temple informed the Planning Commission that there is a required 15 foot setback on Marguerite Avenue of the Jasmine Park project. Ms. Temple further stated that the units proposed range from a 40 foot setback to approximately 80 feet. The setback area will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Ms. Temple stated that the fence will be no more than 30 inches in height, that the fencing along Sandcastle Drive will be of open construction, and that the landscaping will abide by the height limit. Chairman Winburn recommended that the Planning Commission take a straw vote of General Plan Amendment No. 83 -1(A). Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would be in favor of a final vote. Commissioner Goff stated that he would be in favor of a straw vote in the event that members of the Planning Commission would decide to review the other Planning Commissioners • testimony given at the time of the straw vote. Commissioner Person stated that he would be in favor of a straw vote with the option to vote whether to make the straw vote final. Chairman Winburn stated that straw votes would be taken of General Plan Amendment 83 -1(A) divided into three parcels: Marguerite Avenue (Jasmine Park Parcel); Fifth Avenue (Corona del Mar Cottage Homes); and Buck Gully Parcel. Commissioner Goff stated that because of the traffic problem in Corona del Mar, and the proposed projects increased density, increased traffic and the possible increase in traffic problems that he will not be supporting 83 -1A or any element therein. Commissioner koppelman stated that because Corona del Mar is geographically situated between the proposed Downcoast and Newport Center developments, and the present traffic situation on East Coast Highway and the flower streets in Corona del Mar is critical, and changing the residential from low density to medium density, the planned deficiency in traffic will become more deficient. Commissioner Koppelman further stated • that there has been no true commitment to senior 27 February 21, 1985 MINUTES Commissioner Kurlander stated that he can support the Jasmine Park parcel because of the small increase in density. Commissioner Kurlander further stated that because of the planned deficiency in traffic in Corona del Mar that he could not approve all three projects which would create a greater traffic problem. Commissioner Kurlander commented that there has not been a real commitment on senior housing. Commissioner Kurlander advised that he cannot support the Brisa del Mar and Corona del Mar parcels but he could support Jasmine Park. Commissioner Person stated that he will be able to support the Jasmine Park site but he will not be able to support the Corona del Mar and Brisa del Mar sites. Commissioner Person explained that he has mixed • emotions regarding the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes being planned between the high density of .old Corona del Mar and the low density of Harbor View Hills, and that because of the traffic and planned deficiency of the Corona del Mar area that he would not be able to override the traffic phasing ordinance. Commissioner Person commented that there are no trade -offs in exchange for the high density and for that reason he would not accept any encroachments into Buck Gully. Commissioner Person stated that he would like to have a study done to see if the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes site would be suitable for senior housing. In reference to Brisa del Mar, Commissioner Person commented that he does not believe there was much of a commitment made by The Irvine Company towards senior housing, and that two years ago that provision was requested by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Person further commented that because of the traffic generated by Brisa del Mar and Corona del Mar Cottage Homes that he will not be able to support .these Projects, however he will support Jasmine Park. Commissioner Turner agreed with Commissioner Person regarding Brisa del Mar and stated that he will be able to support Jasmine Park, however he further stated that the Corona del Mar Cottage Home problems could be • I I I I I mitigated. Commissioner Turner stated that because The Irvine Company could return with plans of cluster homes instead of the proposed detached homes that the traffic 28 xx cc 1 2 c 9 m> r 9 A m Z ma a zr 41 T 2 City of Newport Beach M a s m ROLL CALL INDEX housing, and for these reasons she is unable to support General Plan amendment 83 -1(A) on any of the three sites. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he can support the Jasmine Park parcel because of the small increase in density. Commissioner Kurlander further stated that because of the planned deficiency in traffic in Corona del Mar that he could not approve all three projects which would create a greater traffic problem. Commissioner Kurlander commented that there has not been a real commitment on senior housing. Commissioner Kurlander advised that he cannot support the Brisa del Mar and Corona del Mar parcels but he could support Jasmine Park. Commissioner Person stated that he will be able to support the Jasmine Park site but he will not be able to support the Corona del Mar and Brisa del Mar sites. Commissioner Person explained that he has mixed • emotions regarding the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes being planned between the high density of .old Corona del Mar and the low density of Harbor View Hills, and that because of the traffic and planned deficiency of the Corona del Mar area that he would not be able to override the traffic phasing ordinance. Commissioner Person commented that there are no trade -offs in exchange for the high density and for that reason he would not accept any encroachments into Buck Gully. Commissioner Person stated that he would like to have a study done to see if the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes site would be suitable for senior housing. In reference to Brisa del Mar, Commissioner Person commented that he does not believe there was much of a commitment made by The Irvine Company towards senior housing, and that two years ago that provision was requested by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Person further commented that because of the traffic generated by Brisa del Mar and Corona del Mar Cottage Homes that he will not be able to support .these Projects, however he will support Jasmine Park. Commissioner Turner agreed with Commissioner Person regarding Brisa del Mar and stated that he will be able to support Jasmine Park, however he further stated that the Corona del Mar Cottage Home problems could be • I I I I I mitigated. Commissioner Turner stated that because The Irvine Company could return with plans of cluster homes instead of the proposed detached homes that the traffic 28 February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX phasing ordinance would pass and that fact_did not make sense. Commissioner Turner further commented that he agrees with the tie -in between old Corona del Mar density and Harbor View Hills density. Commissioner Eichenhofer stated that she agrees with Commissioner Person and Commissioner Turner. Commissioner Eichenhofer further stated that she believes that there is a need for the young professional who is a renter in Newport Beach and would like to purchase a home, which would be possible in the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes. Commissioner Eichenhofer commented that she would like to see some of these things resolved. Commissioner Eichenhofer advised that she would be able to support Jasmine Park. Commissioner Person advised that he believes that it is difficult to continue to approve projects until the traffic circulation problems are solved. • Ms. Temple recommended that Item No. 7 of the Resolution regarding Jasmine Park be corrected because the affordable housing requirement is keyed to Brisa del Mar and be changed to read "on -site or off -site with four (4) units affordable to County median income families and one (1) unit affordable to County low income." Ayes x x x x Noes x1x11 Straw vote motion was taken on Jasmine Park. Ayes I �x I` I I I I Straw vote motion was taken on Corona del Mar Cottage Noes x pc x x x Homes. Mr. Burnham commented. that the Planning Commission may want to remove the low density alternative of Buck Gully in consideration of density increase on the Jasmine Park site. Commissioner Turner queried that if the Buck Gully portion of the amendment be approved, then would the parcel fall into the open space category? Mr. Hewicker confirmed Commissioner Turner's comment. Commissioner Person queried if the applicant would be entitled to a density increase elsewhere in the City? Mr. Burnham explained that the applicant has not suffered a taking of the property by virtue of the General Plan designation, however the General Plan designation of open space is the classification of property which may deprive the applicant of substantial economic use and may result into future litigation of zoning if other restrictions were applied to the property. C O � it x _ ti 9 n 7 m C m > A a 0 W C= 0 O C A s o w 0 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX phasing ordinance would pass and that fact_did not make sense. Commissioner Turner further commented that he agrees with the tie -in between old Corona del Mar density and Harbor View Hills density. Commissioner Eichenhofer stated that she agrees with Commissioner Person and Commissioner Turner. Commissioner Eichenhofer further stated that she believes that there is a need for the young professional who is a renter in Newport Beach and would like to purchase a home, which would be possible in the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes. Commissioner Eichenhofer commented that she would like to see some of these things resolved. Commissioner Eichenhofer advised that she would be able to support Jasmine Park. Commissioner Person advised that he believes that it is difficult to continue to approve projects until the traffic circulation problems are solved. • Ms. Temple recommended that Item No. 7 of the Resolution regarding Jasmine Park be corrected because the affordable housing requirement is keyed to Brisa del Mar and be changed to read "on -site or off -site with four (4) units affordable to County median income families and one (1) unit affordable to County low income." Ayes x x x x Noes x1x11 Straw vote motion was taken on Jasmine Park. Ayes I �x I` I I I I Straw vote motion was taken on Corona del Mar Cottage Noes x pc x x x Homes. Mr. Burnham commented. that the Planning Commission may want to remove the low density alternative of Buck Gully in consideration of density increase on the Jasmine Park site. Commissioner Turner queried that if the Buck Gully portion of the amendment be approved, then would the parcel fall into the open space category? Mr. Hewicker confirmed Commissioner Turner's comment. Commissioner Person queried if the applicant would be entitled to a density increase elsewhere in the City? Mr. Burnham explained that the applicant has not suffered a taking of the property by virtue of the General Plan designation, however the General Plan designation of open space is the classification of property which may deprive the applicant of substantial economic use and may result into future litigation of zoning if other restrictions were applied to the property. February 21, 1985 MINUTES C O m M z c m z a s 9= r 0 2 Z a= a a m n City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker stated that City Council voted to amend the removal of the residential alternative in Buck Gully of the Open Space and and Land Use Element, and that the Planning Commission would reaffirm this action plus impose two other requirements that were set forth in the draft resolution. If Brisa del Mar and Corona del Mar Cottage Homes are not considered,then the recommendation regarding Buck Gully would be to reinstate the residential alternative until staff can come up with a solution as to what is going to happen at the Brisa del Mar and Cottage Homes sites. Ms. Temple stated that the additional requirements would direct the re- zoning and recording of open space easement. A decision was made that a straw vote would not be necessary regarding Buck Gully in accordance with the action taken by City Council. All Ayes After further discussion, Chairman Winburn recommended a straw vote motion to reaffirm the designation of Buck Gully for Recreational and Environmental Open Space Use, but not require any open space zoning or easements • at this time. Commissioner Goff advised that he will not support General Plan Amendment 83 -1(D) because The Irvine Company had been requested two years ago by the Planning Commission to consider senior citizen housing and in Commissioner Goff's opinion this was not adequately done. Commissioner Goff further stated that he will not support the project because of the traffic impact. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he will not support Brisa del Mar for the same reasons as Commissioner . Goff. Chairman Winburn advised that she will not support GPA 83 -1(D) because affordable housing for entry level workers of all ages, and senior citizen housing, which is limited to age, do not mix. Chairman Winburn further stated that she does not know how the project can be limited when qualifying for affordable and limited to age - if this has been done or if it has been legally tested. All Ayes A straw vote motion to deny Brisa del Mar was taken. x Commissioner Person made a motion to take action in Al�pyes accordance with the straw votes as previously recorded to adopt Resolutions No. 1128 and 1129 making recommendations to the City Council on General Plan Amendments 83 -1(A) and 83 -1(D). 30 Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes • Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes • COMMISSIONERS xx c o = Ple c m a z n m a S a r 0 2 0 O C 0 0 �C= am O ms V'" Z Z a a a* m X .9 February 21, 1985 MINUTES itv of The Planning Commission reconvened at 12:15 a.m. Beach recessed. at 12:10 a.m, and Mr. Joe Lancor, on behalf of the applicant Senator D. G. Anderson, requested that Item No. 9 (Site Plan Review No. 37, Modification No. 3017 and Resubdivision No. 799) be continued to March 7, 1985. Motion was made to continue Site Plan Review No. 37, Modification No. 3017 and Resubdivision No. 799 to March 7, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Burnham recommended that Item No. 4, Resubdivision No. 798(84 -728) be continued to March 7, 1985. Motion was made to continue Item No. 4, Resubdivision No. 798(84 -728) to March 7, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. A. Amendment No. 614 (Continued Public Hearing) Motion was made to deny Traffic Study related to the Corona del Mar Cottage Homes project, subject to the Findings for Denial in Exhibit "C ". MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to deny Amendment No. 614 because the Amendment does not comply with the General Plan. MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. . 11949 subject to the Findings for Denial in Exhibit "C ". MOTION CARRIED. Traffic Study FINDINGS: 1. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect- generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Uti- lization of greater than .90. 31 INDEX ROLL is Amendment No. 614 FINDINGS: MINUTES Beach 1. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11949 FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan inasmuch as the proposed density of the project exceeds that which is permitted in the Low Density Residential Land Use designation. 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 3. That the proposed subdivision does. meet the requirements of title of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code inasmuch as the proposed plan of subdivi- sion includes interior lots which are less than 50 feet wide and less than 5000 sq. ft. in area and corner lots which are less than 60 feet wide and less than 6000 sq.ft. in area. 4. That the proposed density of development is incompatible with the established density of development for the existing residential areas northerly of the subject property. 5. That the traffic study for the proposed subdivi- sion indicates that generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the critical ,intersections, and will add to an unsat- isfactory level of traffic service at critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. x f 11111111 Mr. Neish queried if the Planning Commission should 0 certify that the Environmental Impact Report as being 32 February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS X C ° c m i z 1Z= j T W a M m a o 0 Z r 0 ° ; ° r z ° r City of Nev z m s y z a m Amendment No. 614 FINDINGS: MINUTES Beach 1. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11949 FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan inasmuch as the proposed density of the project exceeds that which is permitted in the Low Density Residential Land Use designation. 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 3. That the proposed subdivision does. meet the requirements of title of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code inasmuch as the proposed plan of subdivi- sion includes interior lots which are less than 50 feet wide and less than 5000 sq. ft. in area and corner lots which are less than 60 feet wide and less than 6000 sq.ft. in area. 4. That the proposed density of development is incompatible with the established density of development for the existing residential areas northerly of the subject property. 5. That the traffic study for the proposed subdivi- sion indicates that generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the critical ,intersections, and will add to an unsat- isfactory level of traffic service at critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. x f 11111111 Mr. Neish queried if the Planning Commission should 0 certify that the Environmental Impact Report as being 32 February 21, 1985 MINUTES ROLL CALLI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX adequate for the three projects? Mr. Burnham replied that because the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council that it is the function of the City Council do make that decision. A. Amendment No. 615 (Continued Public Hearing) Mr. David Neish, representing The Irvine Company, stated that the applicant is in accordance with the Findings and Conditions for the Jasmine Park project and the Environmental Document. Motion x Ayes x X x x Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 615 in Noes x x accordance with the the Findings and Conditions of Approval of Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED.. .- Motion x Motion was made to approve Traffic Study in accordance Ayes x x 2 x x with the Findings and Conditions of Approval of Exhibit Noes x x "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that the City �o is concerned regarding the liability of certain = portions of a roadway constructed over a storm drain c m> i that would have access to the site, and staff is z T recommending that when City Council considers the Tract a= Z w Z c i a = C * O m City of Newport Beach would require the Applicant to install lighting in the ROLL CALLI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX adequate for the three projects? Mr. Burnham replied that because the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council that it is the function of the City Council do make that decision. A. Amendment No. 615 (Continued Public Hearing) Mr. David Neish, representing The Irvine Company, stated that the applicant is in accordance with the Findings and Conditions for the Jasmine Park project and the Environmental Document. Motion x Ayes x X x x Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 615 in Noes x x accordance with the the Findings and Conditions of Approval of Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED.. .- Motion x Motion was made to approve Traffic Study in accordance Ayes x x 2 x x with the Findings and Conditions of Approval of Exhibit Noes x x "A ". MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Approve the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Jasmine Park project, and supportive materials; recommend that the City Council certify the Environmental Document is complete and make the Findings listed below: *3 Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that the City is concerned regarding the liability of certain portions of a roadway constructed over a storm drain that would have access to the site, and staff is recommending that when City Council considers the Tract Map, that some conditions be imposed upon the map that would require the Applicant to install lighting in the area of public easements or public roadways as determined by the City Council. The roadway would be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer and other assurances that the property would have a minimal risk on the part of the City if the City should have ownership or control of the property. Motion x Motion was made to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. Ayes x X 12245 in accordance with the Findings and Conditions of Noes x x Approval of Exhibit "A ",. including revisions to [ Conditions No. 51, 52, 54, 55, 67 of the, staff report, and the addition of Condition No. 68. MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Approve the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Jasmine Park project, and supportive materials; recommend that the City Council certify the Environmental Document is complete and make the Findings listed below: *3 February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Of FINDINGS: Beach INDEX 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State EIR guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of this environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on the project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. B. AMENDMENT NO. 615 Approve .Amendment No. 615 establishing Planned Community District Regulations and adopting a Planned Community Development Plan for the Jasmine Park project; also amending a portion of Districting Map No. 32, reclassifying said property from the R -1 -B District to the P -C (Planned Community) District and the establishment of specific setbacks adjacent to Jasmine Creek; and recommend to the City Council approval of said amendment, with the revisions listed below: 1. All setbacks shall be measured from property line, rather than back of curb or back of sidewalk. 2. Section 9 shall be added to "Chapter B - Attached Residential Standards" as follows: "9. Minimum Lot Size Minimum lot size shall be three thousand (3000) square feet. Minimum lot width shall be thirty (30) feet. For each dwelling unit on any lot there shall be a minimum three thousand (3000) square feet of lot area." • I I I I { ( I 3. Section 1 of "Chapter C - Detached I Residential Standards" shall be amended to add the following provision: 34 7 C O n a z C m, m a C z W O; 0 0 i s a* a s m Of FINDINGS: Beach INDEX 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State EIR guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of this environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on the project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. B. AMENDMENT NO. 615 Approve .Amendment No. 615 establishing Planned Community District Regulations and adopting a Planned Community Development Plan for the Jasmine Park project; also amending a portion of Districting Map No. 32, reclassifying said property from the R -1 -B District to the P -C (Planned Community) District and the establishment of specific setbacks adjacent to Jasmine Creek; and recommend to the City Council approval of said amendment, with the revisions listed below: 1. All setbacks shall be measured from property line, rather than back of curb or back of sidewalk. 2. Section 9 shall be added to "Chapter B - Attached Residential Standards" as follows: "9. Minimum Lot Size Minimum lot size shall be three thousand (3000) square feet. Minimum lot width shall be thirty (30) feet. For each dwelling unit on any lot there shall be a minimum three thousand (3000) square feet of lot area." • I I I I { ( I 3. Section 1 of "Chapter C - Detached I Residential Standards" shall be amended to add the following provision: 34 ROLL u l/ u February 21, 1985 "For each dwelling unit on any lot there shall be a minimum three thousand (3000) square feet of lot area." 4. Section 6 of Chapter "B" and Section 4 of Chapter "C" shall be revised to add the following: "Fences or walls along Marguerite Avenue north of Sandcastle Drive shall be limited to thirty inches above curb height. The walls shall be constructed of materials, that provide sufficient spacing so as to not block views (e.g., open wrought iron.). ". 5. Section 10 shall be added to Chapter "B" and Section 7 shall be added to Chapter "C" as follows: "Jasmine Creek Setbacks: Rear. yard setbacks along Jasmine Creek shall be as listed below. No structures shall be allowed in this setback area, including, but not limited to, balconies, garden walls, fences, pools, jacuzzi, spas, mechanical equipment, gazebos, or patio structures. No grading shall be allowed except for the purposes of slope maintenance and repair. This area shall be landscaped and maintained by the applicant or successors -in- interest. Lot Number (TTM 12245) Setback (in feet) 17 40 X 45 19 50 20 60 25 20 c O 30 27 25 28 30 29 30 30 x 31 40 32 50 c m i z C= A N z o L C 9= T 0 m City of Newport Beach "For each dwelling unit on any lot there shall be a minimum three thousand (3000) square feet of lot area." 4. Section 6 of Chapter "B" and Section 4 of Chapter "C" shall be revised to add the following: "Fences or walls along Marguerite Avenue north of Sandcastle Drive shall be limited to thirty inches above curb height. The walls shall be constructed of materials, that provide sufficient spacing so as to not block views (e.g., open wrought iron.). ". 5. Section 10 shall be added to Chapter "B" and Section 7 shall be added to Chapter "C" as follows: "Jasmine Creek Setbacks: Rear. yard setbacks along Jasmine Creek shall be as listed below. No structures shall be allowed in this setback area, including, but not limited to, balconies, garden walls, fences, pools, jacuzzi, spas, mechanical equipment, gazebos, or patio structures. No grading shall be allowed except for the purposes of slope maintenance and repair. This area shall be landscaped and maintained by the applicant or successors -in- interest. Lot Number (TTM 12245) Setback (in feet) 17 40 18 45 19 50 20 60 25 20 26 30 27 25 28 30 29 30 30 40 31 40 32 50 48 40" 35 MINUTES February 21, 1985 MINUTES co f a V z c m j m a a$ r 0 M_ 0 o; O i a s i E Of t Beach INDEX The map delineating these setbacks attached hereon shall also be an exhibit in the P -C District Regulations. Chapter D shall be revised to add the following: "Security fences for the recreation complex shall be constructed of open wrought -iron, or other open con- struction, for the purpose of increasing the visual open space of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt area." C. TRAFFIC STUDY Approve the Traffic Study and make the following • Findings, based upon the facts, listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -l. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect- generated traffic will be less than one percent of existing, plus committed, plus regional traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg . of a critical intersection. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary- modified', or 'primary' street. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 12245 Recommend that the City Council approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12245 subject to the following Findings and Conditions of Approval: 36 February 21, 1985 MINUTES FINDINGS: INDEX 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, with the exception that the subdivision creates lots which are less than 50 feet in width and less than 5000 square feet in area and corner lots which are less than 60 feet in width and less than 6000 square feet in area. 2. That the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 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. 7. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code. 8. That the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Newport. Beach General Plan and the policies contained therein. CONDITIONS: 1. That a final map be filed. 0 111 111 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 37 R R A H 9 r 7 p z c m > z z T m z a a City of Newport Beach FINDINGS: INDEX 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, with the exception that the subdivision creates lots which are less than 50 feet in width and less than 5000 square feet in area and corner lots which are less than 60 feet in width and less than 6000 square feet in area. 2. That the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 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. 7. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code. 8. That the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Newport. Beach General Plan and the policies contained therein. CONDITIONS: 1. That a final map be filed. 0 111 111 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 37 bruary 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS Fe MINUTES INDEX 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That the intersection of the private streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the street improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit or record the tract map prior to completion of the public improvements. 6. That the water capital improvement fees be paid. 7. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 8. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 9. That the design of the streets and drives conform with the City's street standards except as otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. The location, width, configuration, and concept of the street and drive system shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 10. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 38 c O 0 x x c m a z C= a W o s o 0 City of Newport Beach 9= INDEX 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That the intersection of the private streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the street improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit or record the tract map prior to completion of the public improvements. 6. That the water capital improvement fees be paid. 7. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 8. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 9. That the design of the streets and drives conform with the City's street standards except as otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. The location, width, configuration, and concept of the street and drive system shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 10. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 38 February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX 11. 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 be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 12. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification for the City's Utilities Department. 13. County Sanitation District Fees be paid prior to issuance of any Building Permits. • 14. That the storm drain outlet from Harbor View Dam be connected to an underground storm drain system in a manner satisfactory to the Public Works Department unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and that a minimum 20 foot wide storm drain easement be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of any grading permits. 15. That Resubdivision No. 798 be recorded prior to Tract 12245 Final Map. 16. That a letter from the Newport Mesa Unified School District be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any grading permits, that indicates what rights the developer has to perform work on District property. 17. That a full parkway width sidewalk be provided along the Marguerite Avenue frontage. 18. That a paved pedestrian access walk be provided between Harbor View Drive and the northerly side of the Harbor View School site. 19. That work within the Orange County Flood Control District easement be performed in accordance with the requirements of said District. 20. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 39 c O � x T > m z c c m > s = m City a a of Newport Beach n * ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX 11. 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 be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 12. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification for the City's Utilities Department. 13. County Sanitation District Fees be paid prior to issuance of any Building Permits. • 14. That the storm drain outlet from Harbor View Dam be connected to an underground storm drain system in a manner satisfactory to the Public Works Department unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and that a minimum 20 foot wide storm drain easement be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of any grading permits. 15. That Resubdivision No. 798 be recorded prior to Tract 12245 Final Map. 16. That a letter from the Newport Mesa Unified School District be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any grading permits, that indicates what rights the developer has to perform work on District property. 17. That a full parkway width sidewalk be provided along the Marguerite Avenue frontage. 18. That a paved pedestrian access walk be provided between Harbor View Drive and the northerly side of the Harbor View School site. 19. That work within the Orange County Flood Control District easement be performed in accordance with the requirements of said District. 20. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 39 February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 21. 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. 22. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 23. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 24. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 25. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 26. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Department. 27. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 28. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project �x shall be prepared by a licensed landscape c o � architect. x 29. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review - e v m of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department z c m > � a and approval of the Planning Department and Public = H o s o w o Works Department. = a City of Newport Beach M 21. 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. 22. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 23. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 24. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 25. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 26. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Department. 27. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 28. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. 29. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review . of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 40 February 21, 1985 Of t Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX 0 30. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 31. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 32. That prior to the occupancy of any unit a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that noise impacts not exceed 65 CNEL for outside living areas and active recreation, areas and 45 CNEL for interior living area. 33. That any cul -de -sac, building address, and street name shall comply with City Standards and shall be approved by the Fire Department. 34. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 35. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 36. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floorplans, elevations, and sections. 37. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 38. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each of the planned units, an acoustical engineering study shall be performed based on actual pad, property, and roadway grades and building locations and orientations to assure that the exterior building shells of each structure will be sufficient to reduce existing and future noise levels to an acceptable intensity. 39. All' construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. 40. Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators will be screened from view and shall be 41 R R C O O a - H 9 9 9 9 y m a c m m m m z m a s s z z r c z c 2 w w p p; 0 0 D m O O m m M Z a a a y M February 21, 1985 Of t Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX 0 30. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 31. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 32. That prior to the occupancy of any unit a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that noise impacts not exceed 65 CNEL for outside living areas and active recreation, areas and 45 CNEL for interior living area. 33. That any cul -de -sac, building address, and street name shall comply with City Standards and shall be approved by the Fire Department. 34. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 35. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 36. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floorplans, elevations, and sections. 37. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 38. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each of the planned units, an acoustical engineering study shall be performed based on actual pad, property, and roadway grades and building locations and orientations to assure that the exterior building shells of each structure will be sufficient to reduce existing and future noise levels to an acceptable intensity. 39. All' construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. 40. Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators will be screened from view and shall be 41 February 21, 1985 MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX sound - attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property line. 41. All buildings will conform to the Uniform Building Code and the City's seismic design standards. 42. Local and CAL -OSHA safety codes shall be adhered to during all subsurface construction. 43. All proposed development shall provide for vacu- um- sweeping of private streets on a once - per -week basis. 44. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during c o pregrade meetings to inform the developer and = grading contractors of the results of the study. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present z c m > � z during grading activities to inspect the m a m a= o r o x City underlying soil for cultural resources. If M z,� of Newport Beach 2 a z p a + T archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX sound - attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property line. 41. All buildings will conform to the Uniform Building Code and the City's seismic design standards. 42. Local and CAL -OSHA safety codes shall be adhered to during all subsurface construction. 43. All proposed development shall provide for vacu- um- sweeping of private streets on a once - per -week basis. 45. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and /or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and /or developer. 46. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and /or developer to attend pregrade meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. 47. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive the provision of AB 952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 48. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 42 44. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the developer and grading contractors of the results of the study. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a • period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the finds. 45. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and /or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and /or developer. 46. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and /or developer to attend pregrade meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. 47. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive the provision of AB 952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 48. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 42 41 COMMISSIONERS February 21, 1985 49. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded and screened from view by architectural features. 50. A plan depicting the exact location, height, and type of material for all walls separating the project from adjacent uses shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the approval of any building permits. The plan shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 51. Fences or walls along Marguerite Avenue north of Sandcastle Drive shall be limited to thirty inches above curb height. The walls shall be made of materials (e.g. wrought iron) that provide sufficient spacing so as not to block views. The plan shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 52. Delete. 53. The landscape plan shall contain a maintenance program that controls the height of all trees, shrubs, and groundcover so as not to exceed the ridge of any unit adjacent to Marguerite Avenue. 54. No fences or other structures shall be allowed within the area between the western property line and setback line. 55. Delete. MINUTES 56. The entry shall be redesigned to the satisfaction . of the City Engineer to permit visitor vehicles to wait for entry without blocking residents from entering. 57. The first row of units along Marguerite Avenue shall have "closeable" windows. "Closeable" windows refers to a system which allows circulation of fresh air even with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation or a "summer switch" system with a fresh air duct shall be provided to replace the loss of natural ventilation when windows are closed. Alternative mitigation measures may be substituted if recommended by the noise study prepared pursuant to City policy. 43 NDEX x 0 C o � x . _ C z c m o m z c x w O 9 0 0 9 z a= City of Newport Beach 49. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded and screened from view by architectural features. 50. A plan depicting the exact location, height, and type of material for all walls separating the project from adjacent uses shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the approval of any building permits. The plan shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 51. Fences or walls along Marguerite Avenue north of Sandcastle Drive shall be limited to thirty inches above curb height. The walls shall be made of materials (e.g. wrought iron) that provide sufficient spacing so as not to block views. The plan shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 52. Delete. 53. The landscape plan shall contain a maintenance program that controls the height of all trees, shrubs, and groundcover so as not to exceed the ridge of any unit adjacent to Marguerite Avenue. 54. No fences or other structures shall be allowed within the area between the western property line and setback line. 55. Delete. MINUTES 56. The entry shall be redesigned to the satisfaction . of the City Engineer to permit visitor vehicles to wait for entry without blocking residents from entering. 57. The first row of units along Marguerite Avenue shall have "closeable" windows. "Closeable" windows refers to a system which allows circulation of fresh air even with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation or a "summer switch" system with a fresh air duct shall be provided to replace the loss of natural ventilation when windows are closed. Alternative mitigation measures may be substituted if recommended by the noise study prepared pursuant to City policy. 43 NDEX ROLL February 21, 1985 58. Prior to approval of the final grading plan, recommendations of the geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the design and engineering of the project. 59. The applicant shall provide for all onsite storm drains and catch basins as delineated on the tentative map. 60. The applicant shall be responsible for improving Jasmine Creek from the Harbor View Dam outlet to the existing storm drain near the southwestern edge of the site. 61. The applicant shall provide for the proposed catch basin and storm drain along Marguerite Avenue adjacent to the site. 62. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a limited test -level excavation of CA -Ora -1002 shall be conducted to determine if an intact subsurface component is present. This investigation shall be under the direction of a certified archaeologist currently on the Orange County List of Certified Archaeological Consultants. Recommendation regarding the test -level excavation methodology are contained in Appendix G (Breece, 1984) of the Environmental Impact Report. 63. Based on the information from the limited test -level investigation, a report shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall either recommend a mitigation program or document that the site has been sufficiently investigated and that no additional work is deemed necessary prior to the commencement of grading. 64. The storm drain easement provided along Jasmine Creek shall also include provisions for pedestrian access, to provide a walkway connection between Grant Howald Park and the proposed view park. The paved access road required for the storm drain maintenance may also serve as the pedestrian walkway. The area between the access road and the tract boundary shall be landscaped and maintained by the applicant and successors -in- interest. 44 MINUTES xx c o � x z c m z z M c z w 0 3 0 0 z A= T m City of Newport Beach 58. Prior to approval of the final grading plan, recommendations of the geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the design and engineering of the project. 59. The applicant shall provide for all onsite storm drains and catch basins as delineated on the tentative map. 60. The applicant shall be responsible for improving Jasmine Creek from the Harbor View Dam outlet to the existing storm drain near the southwestern edge of the site. 61. The applicant shall provide for the proposed catch basin and storm drain along Marguerite Avenue adjacent to the site. 62. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a limited test -level excavation of CA -Ora -1002 shall be conducted to determine if an intact subsurface component is present. This investigation shall be under the direction of a certified archaeologist currently on the Orange County List of Certified Archaeological Consultants. Recommendation regarding the test -level excavation methodology are contained in Appendix G (Breece, 1984) of the Environmental Impact Report. 63. Based on the information from the limited test -level investigation, a report shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall either recommend a mitigation program or document that the site has been sufficiently investigated and that no additional work is deemed necessary prior to the commencement of grading. 64. The storm drain easement provided along Jasmine Creek shall also include provisions for pedestrian access, to provide a walkway connection between Grant Howald Park and the proposed view park. The paved access road required for the storm drain maintenance may also serve as the pedestrian walkway. The area between the access road and the tract boundary shall be landscaped and maintained by the applicant and successors -in- interest. 44 MINUTES February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES xx �o f y a a z z w o; 0 0 11 X z M= T m City of Newport Beach a ROLL CALL ROLL - INDEX 65. That .25 acre be accepted by the City for park dedication purposes. The remaining park dedication obligation shall be satisfied through the payment of in -lieu park fees which may be offset by required park improvements. 66. The .75 acre of the proposed park dedication area shall be incorporated into private open space Lot #49 and shall be maintained by the homeowners association. 67. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for development on this site, an agreement shall be entered into by developer, landowner and City providing for a number of units equal to at least 108 of the total units be constructed on -site or off -site. 68. That the applicant install lighting in the area of public roadways or easements as determined by the City Engineer. The roadway or easement would be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer to assure that the property would have a minimal risk on the part of the City if the City should have ownership or control of the property. Amendment No. 612 (Continued Public Hearing) Motion x Motion was made to deny Amendment No. 612 on the basis All Ayes that the Amendment does not comply with the General . Plan. MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made to deny Traffic Study relative to the All Ayes Brisa del Mar project. MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. All Ayes 12209 in accordance with the Findings for Denial of Exhibit "B ". MOTION CARRIED. AMENDMENT NO. 612 FINDING: 1. That the proposed Amendment is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. 45 ROLL MMISSIONERS February 21, 1985 TRAFFIC STUDY FINDING: 1. A Traffic Study is not required for projects which are denied. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 12209 FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan inasmuch as the proposed density of the project exceeds that which is permitted in the Low Density Residential Land use designation. 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 3. That the proposed density of development is incompatible with the established density of development for the existing residential areas northerly of the subject property. MINUTES X c o Use Permit No. 1417 (Amended) (Continued Public x H 9 T m Hearing) z C m m z UP 1417 m a C 9 = r 0 I a z a= m City of Newport Beach permitted on -sale alcoholic beverages and dancing Continued TRAFFIC STUDY FINDING: 1. A Traffic Study is not required for projects which are denied. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 12209 FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan inasmuch as the proposed density of the project exceeds that which is permitted in the Low Density Residential Land use designation. 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 3. That the proposed density of development is incompatible with the established density of development for the existing residential areas northerly of the subject property. MINUTES 46 Use Permit No. 1417 (Amended) (Continued Public item No.8 Hearing) UP 1417 Request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted on -sale alcoholic beverages and dancing Continued entertainment in conjunction with an existing restau- to rant in the C -1 District. The proposed amendment is to Mar.21,198 change the "Park Bar and Grill" Restaurant's hours of operation so as to permit the service of lunch and dinner between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday and 10:30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on Sundays. The proposed development also includes a full service bar, an addition of an open patio for dining . and drinking purposes, and the use of live entertain - ment within the restaurant facility. The proposal also includes the request of an informal off-site parking agreement which will provide additional restaurant parking spaces. 46 Motion All Ayes u COMMISSIONERS x February 21, 1985 MINUTES Of Beach LOCATION: Lots 1, 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Block C, Tract No. 470 and an abandoned portion of Carnation Avenue, located at 2515 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of Carnation Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona Del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT:Loomis Foods, Inc., Corona Del Mar OWNER: Poole Properties, Inc., Corona Del Mar Motion was made to continue this item to March 21, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. � k x Site Plan Review No. 37 (Continued Discussion) Request to permit the construction of. a retail commercial building and related off - street parking spaces in the Mariner's Mile specific Plan Area. M111 B. Modification No. 3017 (Review) (Public Hearing) Request to permit a portion of the required commercial parking spaces to be tandem spaces where the Zoning Code requires each parking space to be independently accessible. AND C. Resubdivision No. 799 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide three existing lots and a portion of a vacated alley so as to eliminate interior property lines and create a single building site for retail commercial and off- street parking purposes, on property located in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. LOCATION: Lots 7, 8 and 9, Tract No. 1133, and a • portion of a vacated alley located at 150 Riverside Avenue, on the southeasterly corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. 47 INDEX Item No.9 SPR 37 M 3017 R 799 Continued to Mar.7,1985 m z c m z z 9 r 2 I z sm o a 0 O *+i ms Z a z a s a m x February 21, 1985 MINUTES Of Beach LOCATION: Lots 1, 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Block C, Tract No. 470 and an abandoned portion of Carnation Avenue, located at 2515 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of Carnation Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona Del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT:Loomis Foods, Inc., Corona Del Mar OWNER: Poole Properties, Inc., Corona Del Mar Motion was made to continue this item to March 21, 1985. MOTION CARRIED. � k x Site Plan Review No. 37 (Continued Discussion) Request to permit the construction of. a retail commercial building and related off - street parking spaces in the Mariner's Mile specific Plan Area. M111 B. Modification No. 3017 (Review) (Public Hearing) Request to permit a portion of the required commercial parking spaces to be tandem spaces where the Zoning Code requires each parking space to be independently accessible. AND C. Resubdivision No. 799 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide three existing lots and a portion of a vacated alley so as to eliminate interior property lines and create a single building site for retail commercial and off- street parking purposes, on property located in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. LOCATION: Lots 7, 8 and 9, Tract No. 1133, and a • portion of a vacated alley located at 150 Riverside Avenue, on the southeasterly corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. 47 INDEX Item No.9 SPR 37 M 3017 R 799 Continued to Mar.7,1985 COMMISSIONERS x a c o 'iy s9 = 9 m m p x z r o z o w �Mm mi +oi z s z z z m m February 21, 1985 Of Beach of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT:Senator D.G. Anderson, Honolulu, Hawaii OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Lancor Architects, Del Mar Motion (x) I I I I I Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning All Ayes Commission Meeting of March 7,1985. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3134 (Public Hearing) Request to change the operational characteristics of an existing liquor store and delicatessen in the C -1 District so as to establish a take -out restaurant facility with incidental seating, and a waiver of a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: Lots 5 and 6, Tract No. 1045, located at 3244 East Coast Highway, on the northwesterly corner of Marguerite Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona Del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT:Ted E. Sandoval, Cornona del Mar OWNER: Franklin Inter Vivos Trust, Corona del Mar Chairman Winburn opened the public hearing. The applicant or his representative were not in the audience to speak on behalf of the use permit. The public hearing was closed at this time. All Ayes I I I I I I I Che findingsdefor deny Den al P n� Exh bit134A". MMOTION to FINDINGS: 1. That the take -out restaurant operation represents . an intensification of the use of the subject 48 MINUTES Item No.101 UP 3134 Denied ROLL February 21, 1985 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES property, which will require a greater amount of parking and generate more traffic than the previous retail use. 2. That there is not adequate off - street parking available for employees and customers of the proposed take -out restaurant. 3. That payment of an annual fee to the City to provide a portion of the required off - street parking spaces in the nearby Municipal lot will not increase the number of parking spaces available to the take -out restaurant, inasmuch as this Municipal lot,is often filled to capacity. 4. That the establishment', maintenance or operation of the proposed restaurant will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the • neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. x A. Use Permit No. 3135 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a two -unit residential condominium development and related garages and carports on property located in the R -2 District. 0k7 B. Resubdivision No. 801 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot so as to create a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R -2 District. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 537, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 501 and 501 Larkspur Avenue, on the northwesterly corner of Larkspur Avenue and Second Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 ��S.s and ers�ina Ana • 11111111 OWNER La Verne RMalveg� 49 Item No 11 UP3135 8801 Approved 7C R c O n f = V S z c C m z a C z m Z o i 0 0 m M a a* City of Newport Beach property, which will require a greater amount of parking and generate more traffic than the previous retail use. 2. That there is not adequate off - street parking available for employees and customers of the proposed take -out restaurant. 3. That payment of an annual fee to the City to provide a portion of the required off - street parking spaces in the nearby Municipal lot will not increase the number of parking spaces available to the take -out restaurant, inasmuch as this Municipal lot,is often filled to capacity. 4. That the establishment', maintenance or operation of the proposed restaurant will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the • neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. x A. Use Permit No. 3135 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a two -unit residential condominium development and related garages and carports on property located in the R -2 District. 0k7 B. Resubdivision No. 801 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot so as to create a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R -2 District. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 537, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 501 and 501 Larkspur Avenue, on the northwesterly corner of Larkspur Avenue and Second Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 ��S.s and ers�ina Ana • 11111111 OWNER La Verne RMalveg� 49 Item No 11 UP3135 8801 Approved February 21, 1985 Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX Motion All Ayes IMotion All Ayes 0 • E] ENGINEER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened at this time, and Mr. Robert Vaughan, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Vaughan stated that the applicant is in accordance with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3135, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 801, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3135 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The applicants intend to comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of ap- proval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium develop- ment. 6. That the establishment of a new street curb. opening along Second Avenue is consistent with the provisions of City Council Policy L -2 pertaining to the construction of new residential driveway approaches. 50 C x C O � x 2 c m > _ m a 9 = r P I * w D m O m s 2 D= �p s M m February 21, 1985 Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX Motion All Ayes IMotion All Ayes 0 • E] ENGINEER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened at this time, and Mr. Robert Vaughan, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Vaughan stated that the applicant is in accordance with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3135, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 801, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3135 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The applicants intend to comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of ap- proval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium develop- ment. 6. That the establishment of a new street curb. opening along Second Avenue is consistent with the provisions of City Council Policy L -2 pertaining to the construction of new residential driveway approaches. 50 ROLL 0 0 February 21, 1985 Of Beach 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3135 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 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 one garage space and one carport parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit with the understanding that the carport adjacent to Second Avenue shall be only partially covered. 3. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 801 shall be fulfilled. 4. The proposed off - street parking spaces shall be designed so as to fully conform with the require - ments of Section 20.87.260 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. That the proposed development shall meet the provisions of Section 20.02.030,(A) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as to permitted building heights in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. 6. That the proposed third floor roof deck shall be designed so as to conform with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (1979 Edition). This condition will necessitate a third common stairway from the third level roof deck to the ground. 7. That the proposed stucco wall located within the required 20 foot front yard setback shall not exceed a height of 3 feet measured from existing grade, unless a modification to the Zoning Code is approved by the Modifications Committee. 8. That the proposed spa shall not be constructed with the required 20 foot front yard setback, 51 MINUTES �x c O � E x 9 > ; m z c m Z m z m a 0 y r x == N O 10 0 O O M m o m 10 M r z a y y z a m m ROLL 0 0 February 21, 1985 Of Beach 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3135 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 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 one garage space and one carport parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit with the understanding that the carport adjacent to Second Avenue shall be only partially covered. 3. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 801 shall be fulfilled. 4. The proposed off - street parking spaces shall be designed so as to fully conform with the require - ments of Section 20.87.260 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. That the proposed development shall meet the provisions of Section 20.02.030,(A) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as to permitted building heights in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. 6. That the proposed third floor roof deck shall be designed so as to conform with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (1979 Edition). This condition will necessitate a third common stairway from the third level roof deck to the ground. 7. That the proposed stucco wall located within the required 20 foot front yard setback shall not exceed a height of 3 feet measured from existing grade, unless a modification to the Zoning Code is approved by the Modifications Committee. 8. That the proposed spa shall not be constructed with the required 20 foot front yard setback, 51 MINUTES 'VIMISSIONERS February 21, 1985 MINUTES unless the required fence is approved by the Modifications Committee. Resubdivision No. 801 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no prob- lems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the Public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the deteriorated and displaced curb and gutter be reconstructed along the Larkspur Avenue and Second Avenue frontages; that the unused . driveway apron on second Avenue be removed and replaced with curb and gutter; that sidewalk be constructed along the Second Avenue frontage and that the displaced sidewalk be reconstructed along 52 x x C o � x y v 7 m 2 c m z T Cz Z a= v. 090 x 0 m City a a, of Newport Beach unless the required fence is approved by the Modifications Committee. Resubdivision No. 801 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no prob- lems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the Public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the deteriorated and displaced curb and gutter be reconstructed along the Larkspur Avenue and Second Avenue frontages; that the unused . driveway apron on second Avenue be removed and replaced with curb and gutter; that sidewalk be constructed along the Second Avenue frontage and that the displaced sidewalk be reconstructed along 52 COMMISSIONERS � R c o n ti v 9 m z c m > z m z m p 2 r P 2 z N O i 0 0 Ic m O m s T T z a z z a s w m February 21, 1985 Of Beach the Larkspur Avenue frontage: and that a curb access ramp be constructed at the corner of Larkspur Avenue and Second Avenue. 6. That a 10' radius corner cutoff at the corner of Larkspur Avenue and 2nd Avenue be dedicated to the Public. A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: Planning Director Hewicker discussed the 'joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting with the Planning Commissioners that will be held in the City Council Chambers on March 25, 1985, at 2:00 p.m. * x ► A D J O U R N M E N T : 12:50 a.m. 0 JOHN C. RURLANDER, SECRETARY NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 53 MINUTES INDEX Additional ' Business