Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/1983MMISSIONERS1 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING XIXIXIX 1K 14 A All Present. Motion All Ayes X X x x x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, City Attorney x x x STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Patricia Temple, Senior Planner Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary x x x APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of February 10, 1983 MINUTES Commissioner Goff referred to Page 13 of the Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1983, and requested that the following comments of Mr. Simmes be added, "Mr. Simmes further stated that all of the constraints and concerns should be identified now, before a developer purchases the property. He stated that in this way, the future developer of the property will be aware of such constraints and concerns." Chairman King referred to Page 5 of the Planning Commission Minutes and requested that his comment be revised to reflect that the grading of the site will be so that the height of any roof along that area will be no more than three feet above curb, or that it would not interrupt the view plane of a person seated in an automobile travelling down Marguerite Avenue. Motion was made for approval of the Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1983, as revised, which MOTION CARRIED. x x x -1- INDEX PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30. p.m. m c DATE: February 24, 1983 a w City of Newport Beach XIXIXIX 1K 14 A All Present. Motion All Ayes X X x x x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, City Attorney x x x STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Patricia Temple, Senior Planner Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary x x x APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of February 10, 1983 MINUTES Commissioner Goff referred to Page 13 of the Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1983, and requested that the following comments of Mr. Simmes be added, "Mr. Simmes further stated that all of the constraints and concerns should be identified now, before a developer purchases the property. He stated that in this way, the future developer of the property will be aware of such constraints and concerns." Chairman King referred to Page 5 of the Planning Commission Minutes and requested that his comment be revised to reflect that the grading of the site will be so that the height of any roof along that area will be no more than three feet above curb, or that it would not interrupt the view plane of a person seated in an automobile travelling down Marguerite Avenue. Motion was made for approval of the Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1983, as revised, which MOTION CARRIED. x x x -1- INDEX COMMISSOIERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 w � m City of Newport Beach 4RDLMCA1LL INDEX Staff suggested that Item No. 4 - Variance No. 1095, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, so as to give staff additional time to review the revised plans submitted by the applicant. Staff then referred to Item No. 7 - Amendment No. 586, and stated that the Harbor View Hills Community Association and The Irvine Company have reached an agreement regarding the sight plane. He stated that the Harbor View Hills Community Association has requested that this item be removed from the agenda. He stated that inasmuch as this item originated at the City Council level, he suggested that a report be made back to the City Council as to the outcome of this item. Motion GENERAL X - PLAN Motion was made to continue Item No. 4 - Variance No. All Ayes X X X X NO. 81 -2 x 1095, to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open 1983, and to remove Item No. 7 - Amendment No. 586, Space ZONE: O -S (Open Space) District AND from the Agenda with a report to be made to the City • Council, which MOTION CARRIED. General Plan Amendment 81 -2 (Public Hearing)- Items No. 1 and 2 Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. • I I I J I (I PROPONENT: State of California,Department of 1 Transportation -2- GENERAL CALTRANS WEST - PLAN _ AMENDMENT LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast NO. 81 -2 Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S (Open Space) District AND • I I I J I (I PROPONENT: State of California,Department of 1 Transportation -2- om > A G)y MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS LOCATION: A:" Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between 5th Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of 5th Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between 5th Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: R -1 -B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BIG CANYON AREA 16 • LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental. Open. Space. ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings -3- INDEX AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH TO � c vm > x 0°i D MINUTES February 24, 1983 W CAMPUS DRIVE LOCATION: Beach INDEX Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive /Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative _ Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial. ZONE: M -1 -A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C -1 (Commercial) District. PROPONENT: The City of Newport. Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach • AND Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned) LCP: - Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach - I j I I Chairman King opened the public hearing and testimony I was taken on the following items, beginning with • Caltrans West: Im n x � r c m- c • • MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach CALTRANS WEST Mr. David Simmes, representing the State of California, Department of Transportation, appeared before the Commission. He referred to Page 13 of the February 24, 1983, staff report and requested that item No. 3 be deleted which states: 3) Delete designation of future neighborhood park on -site and contribute in -lieu fees for improvement of neighborhood park to the west. He stated that Item No. 3 as it currently reads, may be misinterpreted by a potential buyer of the property. Mr. Simmes suggested that Item No. 3 be revised as follows: "3) CalTrans West will be required to comply with the Park Dedication Ordinances. A park of approximately five acres in size is to be developed between Pacific Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street and Bluff Road. The specific size, location and design of the park, and the means to acquire and develop it will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and /or the adjacent Banning - Newport Ranch residential developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential tract." He stated that the revised language of Item No. 3 will clarify the obligations for the potential, future buyer of the property. Chairman King asked if the wording, "a park of a minimum of five acres," is more appropriate than the wording, "a park of approximately five acres." Planning Director Hewicker stated that the wording, "a park of approximately five acres" is consistent with the adopted wording for the Banning- Newport Ranch development. Mr. Simmes stated that Mr. Banning, representing Beeco, Ltd., is present and can address the access issue of the CalTrans West site. - - Mr. Bill Banning, representing Beeco, Ltd., the owner of adjoining property addressed in General Plan. Amendment No. 81 -1, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Banning stated that the proposed revision to Item No. 3 as suggested by Mr. Simmes is consistent with the -5- CALTRANS WEST 3 X r m � m c m T. Li my D • 9 MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach language imposed in General Plan Amendment No. 81 -1. He stated that the adjoining properties would then be equally obligated to work together towards the solution of this important aspect for the development of West Newport. Mr. Banning addressed the issue of access for both the early development of the Beeco and CalTrans properties adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that Bluff Road is proposed to be extended from the Pacific Coast Highway intersection, northerly to 15th Street, 17th Street, and ultimately to 19th Street, as part of an obligation of General Plan Amendment No. 81 -1. He stated that public testimony in the past has indicated that the logical access to the CalTrans parcel which is to be developed for residential purposes would be off of Bluff Road at an intersection which is 300 to 400 feet inland from Pacific Coast Highway, as opposed to other access which may be obtained. Mr. Banning stated that he will cooperate and work with CalTrans or a subsequent owner of the CalTrans property to ensure a mutually acceptable access off of Bluff Road, as well as the formation of the park requirement. He addressed problems such as the grading of the .site and the removal of an oil well, however, he stated that they will work with CalTrans in eliminating these difficulties, to produce a viable overall plan for the area. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Banning if he would be willing to allow CalTrans, or the subsequent owner of the CalTrans property, to have access up to the entrance of their property as deemed necessary, on the proposed Bluff Road, if the Banning/Newport Ranch development is not ready to proceed. Mr. Banning stated that they will work towards this solution, making it very clear that the oil well is the property of the operator, Mobile Oil Corporation. He stated that CalTrans and Beeco, Ltd. will have to arrive at an economically viable solution for the elimination of the oil well. He stated that with the abandonment of the well, the site can be graded and proper access can be directed from Bluff Road into the CalTrans property. He stated that they will be working with CalTrans and Mobile Oil Corporation to resolve the problem. 0 INDEX � r ro m X"' City of w. m . MINUTES February 24, 1983 Beach INDEX Mr. Banning stated that if the Banning /Newport Ranch site is developed first, this problem will have already been solved and will not be an obstacle for the CalTrans site. He stated that if both of the parcels are developed concurrently, both the access problems and the park requirement can be coordinated and resolved simultaneously. Planning Director Hewicker discussed the buildable acreage of the site and stated that allowing for the bluff area, the extension of the pedestrian bicycle trail and a provision for a 30 foot greenbelt adjacent to Newport Crest, approximately 146 dwelling units could be built if there were no park on the site. He stated that approximately 136 dwelling units could be built with a one acre view park on the site. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Simmes if CalTrans would • be willing.to expedite a traffic signal for Bluff Road at that point and time when access is needed. Mr. Simmes stated that he would be able to answer this question at the next Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Goff asked what the ramifications would be of conditioning this project that access be .taken.only . off of Bluff Road, since Bluff Road is currently not existing. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that the property owner may have a strong argument that the City has deprived them of any substantial, economic use of the property. He stated that the owner of property has a right of reasonable access to his property off of the existing public streets. He added that he would assume that CalTrans would be aware of these concerns, since they are in the transportation business. Commissioner Goff stated that considering Mr. Banning's testimony in which he indicated a willingness to cooperate with CalTrans, and considering that access off of Superior Avenue or Pacific Coast Highway may not be a reasonable access from a safety standpoint, he requested Mr. Burnham to comment further on the ramifications on such a condition. 0 11111111 -7- c m m D MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Don Webb; City Engineer, stated that access off of Pacific Coast Highway would not be considered feasible. He stated that access off of Superior Avenue would depend upon how the site is graded. He stated that Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue should only be considered as secondary or emergency accesses to the site. Commissioner Goff asked if it would be reasonable to identify conditions at this time, which would pertain to the CalTrans East parcel for a potential, future owner, namely Hoag Hospital. Mr.. Burnham stated that it would be reasonable to impose a condition, such as a limitation on use, on this general plan amendment that relates to the CalTrans East parcel. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Burnham stated that imposing certain conditions on the CalTrans East parcel does not create a legal impediment because an identity of ownership has been determined. Planning Director Hewicker stated that this is not a case of imposition, but a case where there is an agreement and consent on behalf of the property owner. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, referred to Page 13 of the February 24, 1983, staff report and discussed the City's definition of "affordable" housing. He stated that the total requirement for the CalTrans West parcel would be 30 percent; 20 percent affordable as defined in the City's Housing Element, and 10 percent using the State standard of affordability. He stated that the 10 percent of the State standard is related to the Mello Bill which requires that the City consider providing affordable housing in new projects. He stated that the State standard for the moderate income ownership would be a $90,000 to $95,000 structure, as compared to a $126,000 structure for the City's top end of affordability. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 � c m y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX -FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS: FIFTH AVENUE Planning Director Hewicker referred to an aerial map PARCELS exhibit which was prepared to outline Areas A, B and C. Area A In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, referred to the aerial map exhibit and stated that the area bounded by the yellow line is the area which is currently leased by the City from the school district. He stated that over the years, the City has discussed purchasing this from the school district. I I I I I I I Mr. Lloyd Crausy, President of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. He stated that the view obstruction caused • I I I I( I I I by a medium- density or low- density residential designation can not be compared, because neither designation currently exists. In response to a question posed by Mr. Crausy, Chairman King stated that the grading of the site will be so that the height of any roof along that area will be no more than three feet above curb, or that it would not interrupt the view plane of a person seated in an automobile travelling down Marguerite Avenue. Commissioner Balalis stated that standards for height, park dedications and pad locations can be conditioned at the tentative tract map level. He suggested that The Irvine Company file a tract map for these parcels in the immediate future. He stated that the conditions imposed at the tract map level are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Area B - - -I' Mr. Grant Howald, resident of 243 Heliotrope Avenue, and President of the Friends of Oasis, appeared before • the Commission. Mr. Howald stated that they are currently in the process of obtaining more information from The Irvine Company, relating to. Area B. ,may. mMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 m m m m w. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Mr. Lloyd Crausy, President of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association- South, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Crausy referred to Page 11 of the February 24, 1983, staff report and stated that the streets for the proposed development do not have to be like those in Harbor View Hills. However, he stated that structurally, and with the use of curvilinear streets, the development could look more like Harbor view Hills, rather than Old Corona del Mar. Mr'. Crausy also stated that view obstruction caused -by a medium- density or low- density residential designation can not be compared, because neither designation currently exists. In response to a question posed by Mr. Crausy, Commissioner Balalis stated that the street layout for the development would be handled at the tentative tract level. 10 11111111 Area C Mr. Rick Kartch, resident of 1014 Sandcastle Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Kartch stated that he has thoroughly researched the Orange County Planning Commission records relating to the status of Buck Gully. He referred to a letter dated November 24, 1980, by Mayor Heather which related to the water shed provisions of Buck Gully. He also referred to a letter dated January 21, 1981, by Mr. Thomas Neilson, Senior Vice-President of Community Development for The Irvine Company, which stated that development on the slope face of Buck Gully is not anticipated and ' that recreational facilities will be located on slopes generally less than 30 percent. He stated that the letter further indicated that permitted uses within Buck Gully will be limited to passive parks, riding and hiking trails, bike trails, drainage control facilities and utilities. Mr. Kartch stated that the corrected plan for the Buck .Gully area was adopted by the Orange County Planning Commission on January 26, 1981, and- the Orange *County Board of Supervisors on March 4, 1981. He added that . said plan now stands in Orange County. -10- MINUTES February 24, 1983 � x � r c City of Newport Beach R O L L CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Planning Director Hewicker responded to the comments made by Mr. Kartch and stated that the staff's recommendation has been to remove the alternative use of residential in Buck Gully, which would then conform more closely with the Local Coastal Plan as it is anticipated to be developed in the Down Coast area, adjacent to Laguna Beach. He stated that the General Plan shows the primary use of Buck Gully as a Flora and Fauna Reserve. He stated that the City would be more restrictive as to the type of recreational uses which would be permitted in Buck Gully, than the County. Mr. Barry Traten, resident of 1212 Sand Key, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Traten stated that all three of the Fifth Avenue parcels should be considered as one. He expressed his concerns relating to the traffic flow at the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenue. He stated that the proposed • development will severely impeded the current traffic flow. He stated that it is incumbent upon The Irvine Company to demonstrate how the proposed uses will be consistent with the current uses and atmosphere of the area. He stated that the proposed densities will seriously change the character of Corona del Mar. Chairman King asked how the carrying capabilities of Fifth Avenue will be changed by the proposed development. Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that the Public Works Department is recommending that the Subdivision Code be followed. He stated that the right -of= way width of Fifth Avenue would be established at 60 feet between Poppy Avenue and Marguerite Avenue. He stated that the curb to curb roadway width would be. 40 feet. Chairman King stated that Fifth Avenue would be improved and widened" which would enhance its capability to carry the traffic of the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Webb stated that under the development proposal, they anticipate that Fifth Avenue would be a widened, two lane street with parking available on both • sides of the street. _11_ MINUTES February 24, 1983 Commissioner Allen asked if Area C becomes zoned for Recreational and Environmental Open Space, is the City obligated to buy the land. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the area becomes designated for Open Space under the General Plan Amendment, it has not been demonstrated that there are not uses permitted in the Open Space zones that would be compatible with The Irvine Company's interest. However, he stated that there is not a great deal of economic return from a Flora and Fauna Reserve. He stated that this issue will be addressed further by the City Attorney's Office at the next meeting. Commissioner Balalis pointed out several areas within the City which are zoned Open Space, these areas include the Newport Harbor Yacht Club and The Irvine Coast Golf Club. He stated that there are several uses which are permitted under the Open Space designation. -12- r{ c m � Q1 3 m m 0 > City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Traten stated that the problem is with the entire circulation system of the area, not just the Fifth Avenue area. He stated that with the increased density, more people will be utilizing Pacific Coast Highway and the alternative streets in Corona del Mar for ingress and egress. Mr. Richard Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. He stated that they do not want the City to buy or maintain Area C, they want the park funds to be utilized for parks in the area around the Oasis facility, which people can use. He stated that if The Irvine Company could build one or two houses in Buck Gully, it will make Buck Gully more useful to its owner. Mr. Nichols stated that they are opposed to Fifth Avenue becoming a 40 foot street. He stated that they want it to be a 32 foot street, with parking on one side of the street. He stated that they are not trying to impede the traffic flow, they are wanting to stop the development of a large street which could become a bypass to Corona del Mar. Commissioner Allen asked if Area C becomes zoned for Recreational and Environmental Open Space, is the City obligated to buy the land. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the area becomes designated for Open Space under the General Plan Amendment, it has not been demonstrated that there are not uses permitted in the Open Space zones that would be compatible with The Irvine Company's interest. However, he stated that there is not a great deal of economic return from a Flora and Fauna Reserve. He stated that this issue will be addressed further by the City Attorney's Office at the next meeting. Commissioner Balalis pointed out several areas within the City which are zoned Open Space, these areas include the Newport Harbor Yacht Club and The Irvine Coast Golf Club. He stated that there are several uses which are permitted under the Open Space designation. -12- • MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach Commissioner Allen expressed her concern that what might be suggested or encouraged as an alternative use, may have a higher activity level than a couple of single - family dwelling units. Mr'. Burnham stated that it is his understanding that the proposal to the residential designation from Buck Gully is a trade -off for higher densities on Areas A and B. He stated that when all of the parcels are being considered_ as a comprehensive plan, there is legal precedence for designating a particular parcel as Open Space', at the same time as densities are being increased on other parcels. Mr. Burnham stated that he will be preparing a memorandum on this issue for the next meeting. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Webb' stated that if Fifth Avenue were to become a 32 foot wide street, the travel lane would be immediately adjacent to the curb. He stated that a 32 foot wide street does not allow for as much travel lane as a 40 foot wide street. Commissioner ,Allen suggested the possibility of utilizing a 34 foot wide street, with parking on one side of the street, which would allow for safer travel lanes. She stated that this would resolve the concerns of the neighborhood and move the traffic safely. Mr. Webb stated that the Subdivision Code indicates that public streets should have a width of 40 feet. He stated that a 34 foot wide street would not allow the City the flexibility of installing .a bike lane. Commissioner Allen stated that the 60 foot easement will always be there, which allows the City flexibility, if needed in the future. Mr. Webb stated that the standards as suggested by the Public Works Department are compatible with the surrounding uses. He stated that he can understand the concerns of the neighborhood, however, he stated that recommending a street narrower than 40 feet at this location, is not a good reason to construct a 1925 standard street. I f I I I Chairman King stated that having lived in the area, he I is familiar with the parking conditions and constraints. He stated that the area in question is -13- INDEX n x � r � c a a 9 0m = m 3 j m a- w Z MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach Commissioner Allen expressed her concern that what might be suggested or encouraged as an alternative use, may have a higher activity level than a couple of single - family dwelling units. Mr'. Burnham stated that it is his understanding that the proposal to the residential designation from Buck Gully is a trade -off for higher densities on Areas A and B. He stated that when all of the parcels are being considered_ as a comprehensive plan, there is legal precedence for designating a particular parcel as Open Space', at the same time as densities are being increased on other parcels. Mr. Burnham stated that he will be preparing a memorandum on this issue for the next meeting. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Webb' stated that if Fifth Avenue were to become a 32 foot wide street, the travel lane would be immediately adjacent to the curb. He stated that a 32 foot wide street does not allow for as much travel lane as a 40 foot wide street. Commissioner ,Allen suggested the possibility of utilizing a 34 foot wide street, with parking on one side of the street, which would allow for safer travel lanes. She stated that this would resolve the concerns of the neighborhood and move the traffic safely. Mr. Webb stated that the Subdivision Code indicates that public streets should have a width of 40 feet. He stated that a 34 foot wide street would not allow the City the flexibility of installing .a bike lane. Commissioner Allen stated that the 60 foot easement will always be there, which allows the City flexibility, if needed in the future. Mr. Webb stated that the standards as suggested by the Public Works Department are compatible with the surrounding uses. He stated that he can understand the concerns of the neighborhood, however, he stated that recommending a street narrower than 40 feet at this location, is not a good reason to construct a 1925 standard street. I f I I I Chairman King stated that having lived in the area, he I is familiar with the parking conditions and constraints. He stated that the area in question is -13- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 � m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX approximately five blocks long and realistically could not become a freeway with a 40 foot wide street. He stated that restricting the circulation system with a 32 foot street will only make the traffic problems worse. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Open Space designation can be applied to canyons, yachts clubs, golf clubs, high hazard areas, geological hazardous areas, and so on. He stated that such a designation generally requires the consent of the property owner. He stated that in order to keep a piece of property as an Open Space designation, an economic benefit must be provided to the property owner, or the City would have to purchase or condemn the property. He stated that if it is the intent of the City for Buck Gully to remain as a Flora and Fauna • Reserve, the question of economic return must be addressed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that if the Planning Commission should recommend not to increase densities in Areas A and B, then action on Area C should not be taken. Commissioner McLaughlin asked if an increase in density in either Area A or B, would affect the open space designation in Area C., Mr. Burnham stated that he would be prepared at the next meeting to answer this question. Mr. Lloyd Crausy, President of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Crausy stated that they are desirous of hearing the presentation by The Irvine Company for the proposed development on these parcels. He questioned whether The Irvine Company has any valid residential rights in Area C, or if these residential property rights have already been exchanged for higher density in Areas A and B. He also questioned how denying a medium density development would be depriving the applicant of an economic advantage or gain, when • the property is already zoned for low density development. -14- MINUTES February 24, 1983 � x w � m m m y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Crausy stated that the residents on Sandcastle Drive are concerned with the issues of trespassing and transient traffic. He urged that the Buck Gully area be established as an open space parcel and .a permanent . open space easement be recorded. Chairman King explained that the density trade -off would involve all of the parcels and that the residential designation on one parcel would be exchanged for increased densities on the other parcels, rather than making the trade -off restrictive to one parcel. Commissioner Allen stated that a tentative tract map may be too detailed, but that she would like to know what the development proposes. in terms of height. Planning Director Hewicker stated that concurrent processing of general plan amendments and tentative tract maps have been discussed with the Planning • Commission in the past, but the direction of the Commission has been to process the general plan amendment first. He stated that in this particular case, the applicant could supply the Commission with more detailed information. However, he stated that if the applicant should prepare more detailed plans for the development, the plans should only be considered conceptual in nature. Commissioner Allen expressed her concern with the wording of Item No. 8 for Area A and Item No. 5 for Area B, relating to the views. She stated that these items do not express the intent of the City to preserve the views and does not express the intent of The Irvine Company. She suggested that revised _ wording be proposed for these items. Planning Director Hewicker stated that The Irvine Company will be making its presentation on March 10, 1983. He stated that in the interim, The Irvine Company will be making presentations to individuals and the various community associations. Commissioner Balalis stated that the Park, Beaches and Recreation Commission will be submitting information relating to the plans for park sites in this area. • -15- � r c cm X G)m February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES R O L L CALL X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX • • Commissioner Balalis stated that if The Irvine Company or the developer submitted a tract map for the proposed development, the Planning Commission would be able to make an intelligent decision upon the project. He stated that in this way, the height of the proposed development and the street patterns can be indicated. Mr. Burnham explained the recent amendments to the Subdivision Map Act makes concurrent processing next to impossible. Mr. Burnham suggested that more indepth language be submitted upon which the Planning Commission can base their conclusion as to whether or not the proposed project could significantly block views. Commissioner Allen concurred and .stated that she would not necessarily want to determine exact roof lines at this point, but wants a more indepth expression of intent. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the environmental impact report was prepared under the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Act. Chairman King requested that when The Irvine Company makes their presentation, issues such as sight planes, traffic circulation, park funding, vegetation control, and so on, should be addressed in detail, so that an intelligent decision can be made. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Kennedy asked what the buildable area is for Area C. He also expressed his concern that the Flora and Fauna Reserve could become a tennis court use. Mr. Brad Olsen, representing The Irvine Company, stated that they will be making their presentation to the Planning Commission on March 10, 1983. He stated that they are awaiting the decisions of the Park, Beaches and Recreation Commission which is meeting on March 1, 1983. He stated that they have attended meetings with the Corona del Mar Community Association, Harbor View Hills Community Association, Jasmine Creek Community Association, and have spoken to members of the Oasis facility. -16- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 _ m m m m G) w. > City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Olsen stated that The Irvine Company will attempt to explain their intentions and address the issues which have been raised at the next meeting. He stated that tentative tract maps have not been prepared for these parcels. Commissioner Allen stated that if The Irvine Company were to submit tentative plans, she suggested that wording could be written which would demonstrate that the new proposal has no greater impact on the views as the proposal presented on March 10, 1983. Mr. Olsen stated that they will consider such an approach. Commissioner McLaughlin referred to the Newport Center sight plan in which The Irvine Company has reached an agreement with the Harbor View Hills Community Association, and asked if' the wording of such an agreement to protect the views would apply to this item. Planning Director Hewicker stated that this was • a private agreement entered into between the Association and The Irvine Company. Mr. Olsen stated that they will continue to work with the neighbors of the area. BIG CANYON AREA 16 - BIG- CANYON No comments were received regarding this item.- I AREA 16 NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 NEWPORT CENTER - In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. BLOCK 400 Burnham, City Attorney, stated he will .prepare information relating to the square footage for Block 400 at the next meeting. CAMPUS DRIVE { CAMPUS I DRIVE No comments were received regarding this item. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL - AMENDMENT - PROGRAM NO. 2 • No comments were received regarding this item. -17- COMMISSIONERS A � r c m � W c 9 m D - c a o m Me 3 m m MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I III Jill INDEX Motion All Ayes X Motion was made to continue General Plan Amendment 81 -2 X X X and Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, so that the staff can compile the requested information and The Irvine Company can make their presentation on the Fifth Avenue Parcels, which MOTION CARRIED. x x x The Planning Commission recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. I I I I ENGINEER: William G. Church, Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc., Newport Beach Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, referred to his memorandum dated February 24, 1983, and recommended. • that the Planning Commission grant an extension. of the tentative tract map for a two -year period, and allow _18- x x x Request for an extension of time in conjunction with Item:. #3 • the approved Tentative Map of Tract 10019, that permitted the subdivision of 80.5± acres into one lot for commercial development, seven lots for industrial / office development and two lots for further subdivision into residential lots. - TENTATIVE MAP OF - LOCATION: A portion of Lots 224, 442 and 444, TRACT NO. 10019 Block 57, of Irvine's Subdivision, located on property bounded by Bison Avenue, Camelback Street, Jamboree Road, the extension of Eastbluff Drive,. and MacArthur Boulevard, in the Planned Community in North Ford. TWO YEAR EXTENSION GRANTED ZONE: P -C - - APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: _ - - Same as. applicant I I I I ENGINEER: William G. Church, Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc., Newport Beach Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, referred to his memorandum dated February 24, 1983, and recommended. • that the Planning Commission grant an extension. of the tentative tract map for a two -year period, and allow _18- � S m m 3 C Oi m D February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES M ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX The Irvine Company to withdraw the application for the final map on the condition that The Irvine Company commit to construct an alternate roadway if one is selected during the realignment of the transportation corridor. He stated that The Irvine Company would be limited to the requirement that they construct a roadway with an equivalent cross section. He stated that this will facilitate the development of low and moderate income housing and will allow the City to impose necessary conditions if The Irvine Company files partial or multiple final maps. Mr. Fred MacMurdo, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. MacMurdo stated' that they concur with recommendation proposed by the City Attorney. • Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, referred to an exhibit depicting the circulation corridor and described the changes which have occurred in the North Ford area and discussed the possibilities of future road alignments and connections for the area. In response to a question posed by Commission McLaughlin, Mr. Webb stated that the San Joaquin Hills Corridor will not be built for approximately 10 to 12 years. He stated that additional environmental documentation for the corridor will be presented to the County Planning Commission later this year. He stated that funding for the corridor has not been established, as yet. Motion Y Motion was made to grant an extension of the Tentative All Ayes X. X X X X Map of Tract No. 10019 for a two -year period, and allow The Irvine Company to withdraw the application for the Final Map of Tract No. 10019, with the condition that The Irvine Company commit, if any, to construct the roadway chosen as an alternative to Eastbluff Drive extended, with the limitations and subject to the provisions as set forth in the City Attorney's memo of February 24, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. - • IIIIIIII * * * _19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 n x c m o 7c G) y - - - m m _ y = City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 1 1 1171 1 INDEX Request to permit the construction of an accessory Item #4 garage structure on property located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard which exceeds the height of the top of curb of Ocean Boulevard. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a proposed walkway and handrail in excess of three feet in height to encroach into a required 10 foot front VARIANCE yard setback and to allow the subject accessory garage No. 1095 structure to be located on the front one -half of an R -3 parcel. The accessory structure will be constructed on site in conjunction with the construction of a single family dwelling that conforms with the permitted height limits. Staff suggested that Item No. 4 - Variance No. 1095, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, so as to give. staff additional time to review the revised plans submitted by the applicant. Motion X Motion was made to continue: Item No. 4- Variance No.'' All Ayes X X X X 1095, to the Planning Commission Meeting of March. 10, 1983, which MOTION:CARRIED. Chairman King stated that the applicant for Items No. 9 and 10 - Use Permit No. 3021 and Resubdivision No. 741, has requested that these items be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983. He also stated that the homeowners association involved with Item No. 11 - Planning Commission Review, has requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, so that the association can have the opportunity to review the proposed project. -20- LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 36 -3 Continued ( Resubdivision No. 274) located at 2501 to March Ocean Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of Ocean Boulevard at the 10, 1983 southwesterly terminus of Carnation • Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Edward Giddings, -AIA, Newport Beach OWNER: Carl Quandt, San Jacinto Staff suggested that Item No. 4 - Variance No. 1095, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, so as to give. staff additional time to review the revised plans submitted by the applicant. Motion X Motion was made to continue: Item No. 4- Variance No.'' All Ayes X X X X 1095, to the Planning Commission Meeting of March. 10, 1983, which MOTION:CARRIED. Chairman King stated that the applicant for Items No. 9 and 10 - Use Permit No. 3021 and Resubdivision No. 741, has requested that these items be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983. He also stated that the homeowners association involved with Item No. 11 - Planning Commission Review, has requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, so that the association can have the opportunity to review the proposed project. -20- m m Qm A G) � D m Motion All Ayes X V MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach The applicant for Item No.' 11 stated that he would concur with the continuance. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Planning Director Hewicker stated that there is no appeal period involved with Item No. 11. He stated that should Item No. 11 be approved at the next meeting, the applicant could proceed with construction on the gazebo, upon securing a building permit. Motion was made to continue these items to'the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. INDEX -21- • x t Request to permit the construction of a combined retail Item #5 commercial /office building, and a related parking structure with offices, which exceed the basic height • limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District and includes an architectural feature that exceeds 35 feet USE PERM: in height. The proposal also includes a request to NO, 3018 establish a cafe /lounge facility, a nighttime only restaurant, and an office area in excess of 5,000 sq.ft. on property located in the C -1 District in the Central Balboa Specific Plan Area where a specific plan has not been adopted. The request also includes AND modifications to the zoning Code so as to allow the use of parking spaces that are not independently accessible and compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off- street parking in conjunction with a full time valet parking service, and the acceptance of an Item #6 environmental document. AND Request to establish one parcel of land for retail RESUB- . commercial and restaurant development, one parcel of DIVISION land for a private vehicular and pedestrian access, and NO. 339 one parcel of land for office and parking uses, where seven lots and portions of two lots, a portion. of Edgewater Place and a portion of a public alley proposed to be vacated presently exist. The proposal also includes a request to establish grades for the BOTH • purpose of measuring the heights of proposed buildings. DENIED -21- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Lots 1,2,3,7,8,9,10, and portions of Lots 4 and 11, Block 3 of the Balboa Bayside Tract, a portion of Edgewater Place and a portion of a public alley proposed to be vacated, located at 309 Palm Street, on the westerly side of Palm Street between East Bay Avenue and Newport Bay in.Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 - - APPLICANT: Balboa Bayview Development, Inc., Balboa OWNERS: Rolland Vallely Family Trust, Balboa; Balboa Bayview Development, Inc., Balboa; Mike Fazzi, Balboa; and Donald Franklin and James Ray, Corona del Mar. . ENGINEER: UMA/RGB Engineering, Inc., Irvine Agenda Items No. 5 and 6 were heard concurrently, due to their relationship. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Jules Rickless, the applicant and developer of the proposed project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Rickless requested a waiver- of Condition No. 18 of the resubdivision relating to the eight foot wide sidewalk on Bay Street. He stated that there ,is currently a five 'foot, sidewalk on Bay Street and further stated that they are proposing to enlarge the sidewalk to six feet, which would be compatible with the area. He stated that six feet is the maximum amount of sidewalk that can be' taken away from the parcel, in order to make the parking structure operable. Mr. Rickless stated that he has presented his project to the Balboa Improvement Association and the Balboa Peninsula Point Association: He referred to letters - from each of the Associations, which indicated their support for the proposed project. He stated that he will be presenting his project to the Central Newport Beach Community Association next week. -22- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 n x � r c 'v m 7c G) m > C 6 p N - J J 0 10 + N J of Newport Beach R O L L CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX • • Mr. Rickless referred to a an exhibit which depicted the proposed project, in relationship to the Pavilion and the approved Fun Zone project, from the Bay. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Conditions No. '9 and 86 on the use permit and stated that these conditions are adequate to cover the bonding concerns for the project. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition No. 21 on the use permit and stated that construction scheduling is difficult to enforce. However, he stated that if this did become a problem during congested times of the year, the developer of the project could notify the contractor that major deliveries or removal of construction material could be done before the hour of 10:00 a.m. and after the hour of 2:00 p.m. Chairman King stated that this would only be a problem at the beginning of the project. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition No. 27 on the use permit and stated that this condition eliminates the use of double rigs from utilizing the Peninsula. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition No. 57 on the use permit and suggested that an additional sentence be added which would state, "That public access to the deck to be utilized by the public.shall not be restricted during normal business hours." He stated that in this way, the deck would be secured at night when the building is closed, but would be opened in the morning when the building is opened and available to the public. In 'response to a question posed by Chairman King, Planning Director Hewicker 'stated that the owner of the building would be responsible for the maintenance of the deck area. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition No. 84 on the use permit and stated that the handicapped parking is not located in the parking garage facility, but is located behind the building which fronts onto the Bay front. He stated that these spaces are independently accessible for the parking of a handicapped person. -23- � r c 'c ac A G D W February 24, 1983 Beach MINUTES ROLLCALLI III Jill I INDEX • Chairman King asked how the determination is made for the amount of bonding which is needed for a project. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that the anticipated agreement would obligate the developer to pay for all damages which may result from the construction activity. He stated that this would, mean that the developers interest would be covered by an insurance company who would be obligated to cover such lawsuits. He stated that the same conditions. relating to bonding were imposed on the proposed Fun Zone project. In.response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Burnham stated that the bonding would obligate the developer to pay for all damages which result from the construction activity. He stated that such an agreement will create a contractural liability on the part of the developer. Mr. Burnham further stated that Conditions No. 9 and 86 guarantee that the subsidence concern would be covered by the bonding. Commissioner Balalis reminded the Commission of the magnitude of the Fun Zone project. He stated that there was an enormous amount of dewatering for two levels of underground parking which would have to. take place with the Fun Zone project and the subsidence possibility. However, he stated that this project is to be constructed at ground level, which is considered quite ordinary. Chairman King concurred with the comments of Commissioner Balalis and stated that the extent of the bonding coverage for the proposed project should' be reasonable. Commissioner Allen stated that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to protect the City, and the less the City needs to be concerned with the financial problems of an applicant, the better. Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern with setting the precedent that an applicant for any project must post such extensive bonds which are open ended. Commissioner Allen stated that this - project is different, in that it is proposing a three story building to be located on a sand spit. -24- COMMISSICM�ERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 3 � m m m a City of Newport Beach 4ROLMALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Burnham stated that Condition No. 86 could be modified to reflect an area or an amount limitation. Chairman King suggested that the bonding be confined specifically to the site and damage to adjacent parcels. He stated that any damages which would occur while the delivery trucks were on route, would be covered by a separate policy, in any case. Mr. Burnham suggested wording which would cover only damage caused by the construction process on -site. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she would be reluctant in limiting the bonding to only the construction process on -site. She also expressed her concern that the space -o -matic parking system which is being proposed is not currently.being utilized anywhere in the City. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the project will be utilizing the space -o -matic parking device, rather than extensive excavation for the • parking facility. He stated that the space -o -matic system has been approved for use in the Fun Zone project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that the project is proposing to excavate approximately three feet 'below grade. He stated that the proposed excavation is not as close to the Bay, as the Fun Zone site. He stated that the same conditions which were imposed on the Fun Zone project are being recommended for this project. He stated that dewatering may occur with the parking structure, but not to the extent of the Fun Zone project. . Planning Director Hewicker added that there have been many projects on the Balboa Peninsula which have been excavated three and four feet below grade. Commissioner Winburn expressed her concern with the parking allocation relating to the existing off -site agreement for 15 spaces and the proposed additional 12 off -site spaces. She asked. if these were in conjunction with the Fun Zone project and the marina in front of the proposed development. Mr. Talarico stated • that the 15 spaces are an existing off -site parking agreement between the property in question and the Fun Zone property. He stated that the additional 12 spaces -25- � s � r c 'am s cam >_ doll February 24, 1983 Beach MINUTES INDEX are a separate agreement that the applicant has entered into with other properties. He stated that the proposed project is providing 12 spaces over the requirement of the Code. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the parking which is being provided, is for the uses on site, plus 15 spaces for the marina in front of the Fun Zone project, and 12 additional spaces which have been contracted for which are beyond the' City's discretionary review. Mr. Buzz Person, President of the Balboa Improvement Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Person referred to his letter dated February 15, 1983, in which the Balboa' Improvement Association urged the Planning Commission to approve the proposed project. He stated that they do not feel that the proposed . project poses as great of risk as the Fun Zone project. He stated that if any on -site construction were to cause damage to adjacent or nearby properties, the damaged property owner could file against the developers liability insurance to recover the losses. Mr. Person further stated that the Balboa- Peninsula became inhabited in the early 1900's and he does not consider the Peninsula to be a fragile sand spit. He stated that he appreciates the concerns expressed, by the Commission, however, he stated that the Peninsula is a viable piece of property which can be built upon. Mr. Person referred to Conditions No. 20 and 29 on the use permit, and stated that they would like the opportunity to give input to the staff and participate on the proposed scheduling of construction, if construction is to commence during the summer months. Mr. Person referred to Condition No. 91 on the use permit, and stated that he, as an individual, does not want a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Street and East Balboa Boulevard. He requested that a public hearing be held on the. traffic signal issue. Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that the traffic signal is needed more for pedestrian purposes, rather • than for traffic purposes. He stated that the Fun Zone -26- MINUTES February 24, 1983 � x � r c m y City of Newport Beach — m project was conditioned to contribute 508 of the cost of the traffic signal. He stated that there would not be a further public hearing on the traffic signal issue. He .added that Condition No. 28 on the resubdivision also relates to the traffic signal which states that if the Fun Zone project is not developed, the proposed project would be required to pay for the entire cost of the traffic signal. Mr. Person stated that the public notice which was received did not address the possibility of a traffic signal to be located at the intersection of Palm Street and East Balboa Boulevard. He stated that many residents of the Peninsula would be opposed to the installation of such a traffic signal. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Planning Director Hewicker stated that . there is an existing condition on the Fun Zone project which requires the Fun Zone project to contribute 50 percent for the cost of installation of the traffic signal. Mr. Talarico referred to Condition No. 90 on the use permit and stated that reference to Resubdivision No. 739, should refer to Condition No. 31. Mr. Talarico further stated that Condition No. 91 on the use permit should be deleted, because Condition No. 28 on the resubdivision relates to the traffic signal. Commissioner Winburn stated that the Fun Zone project was approved with the use of a space- o -matic system for 25 percent of the total parking. She expressed her concern that 91 percent of the total parking will be handled by the space -o -matic parking system for the proposed project. She stated that she is not familiar with the down time of the systems, such as maintenance, wear and tear, power outages, salt air and fog problems. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she has utilized the space -o -matic parking system in San Francisco which worked well to park her van. However, she stated that . she is concerned with the manner in which the space -o- matic system will be handled for the proposed project. -27- � r c w � m c m > 7C L7 N a C� J February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES Mr. David Collins, representing the project architect Sheldon Pollack, appeared before, the Commission. Mr. Collins stated that the space -o -matic parking systems are utilized extensively and quite successfully in other jurisdictions. He stated that they are only proposing to utilize the space -o -matic system for less than 50 percent of the parking. He stated that it is only in the up position that the automobile would be considered utilizing the space -o -matic system.' Mr. Collins stated that the space -o -matic system has been recently improved and is very reliable. He stated that the advantage of the space -o -matic system is that if there is a failure, it usually affects only one or two of the machines, not the entire system. He stated that the system works hydraulically and does not require power to lower the automobiles. Commissioner Winburn stated that 91 percent of the total parking will still be affected by the operation of the space- o -matic system. Commissioner Allen asked for the locations where the space -o -matic parking system is currently in use. Mr. Collins stated that the space -o -matic - system is currently being utilized in Santa Monica, downtown Los Angeles and throughout the country. He stated that he can provide the Commission with a' list from the manufacturer of the systems which are currently in operation. He stated that the system has been utilized at various locations for the past 10 to 15 years. Mr. Collins stated that the system is proposed for this applicant wanted to simplify operation and maintain the structure. • I! I� I I I - -28 space -o -matic parking project because the the parking structure height limits of the INDEX MINUTES February 24, 1983 � c y. City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Webb referred to Condition No. 18 on the resubdivision and stated that an eight foot- wide sidewalk was required of the Fun Zone project, which allows for the use of landscaping with canopy type trees. He stated that if trees and tree wells are to be utilized, the sidewalk width must be increased to allow for pedestrians to maneuver around the trees. He stated that a six foot wide sidewalk would not be sufficient to accomplish this. He added that the proposed structure has a zero setback with a vertical wall immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. He suggested that if the Commission is desirous of approving a six foot wide sidewalk, Condition No. 44 on the use permit should be modified to delete the canopy type trees in the sidewalk area. Commissioner Balalis stated that he has previously utilized space -o -matic parking systems. He stated that • the system is not widely utilized throughout the community because they are labor intensive and must be operated by an attendant. He stated that they are safe and have been utilized in New Orleans for the past 12 years and have been approved for use in almost every major city in the United States. He stated that he has been an advocate for the City of Newport Beach to begin utilizing the space -o -matic parking system for the Municipal lots, which would double the revenue to the City. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3018, subject to the findings and conditions of the staff report with the following revisions: Condition' No. 91' shall be deleted, but that Condition No. 28 on the Resubdivision No. 739 shall state that the developer .shall contribute 50% of the cost of the traffic signal at the East Balboa Boulevard and Palra Street intersection prior to the issuance of. any building permits, regardless of the fact that the City may hold public hearings to determine whether or not this intersection will be signalized; and, Condition No., 44 be modified to eliminate the canopy type trees in the sidewalk area on Bay Avenue. • -29- Z � r c � m m February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX r 1 U • Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that a specific area plan with landscaping design standards for this area has not been adopted, therefore he stated that the standards which were imposed on the Fun Zone project have been recommended for this project. He stated that the following are alternatives to the sidewalk landscaping issue the' Commission may want to consider: 1) the eight foot sidewalk with trees; 2) narrowing the alley width by two feet; or, 3) narrowing the public easement by two feet along Edgewater Place. Chairman King stated that since there are no specific area plan standards for the area, he suggested that the provision for sidewalk landscaping be determined by staff which would soften the development. He stated that perhaps canopy trees should not be designated, but suggested an alternative such as vine pockets in the building, or some form of vegetation which accomplishes the same affect. Commissioner Balalis concurred with the comments by Chairman King. Commissioner Goff stated that he is not convinced that the proposed project is in the best interest of the City. He stated that the area is severely impacted by poor traffic conditions and lack of parking. He stated that the proposed project is dense enough that it is requiring. valet parking and the use of space -o -matic parking machines. He stated that this only dramatizes the fact. that there is a shortage of land on the Peninsula. He expressed his concern that he would not want to set a precedent for three story commercial developments on the Peninsula. He stated that this will only serve to continue to aggravate the traffic and parking problems which" already exist. He stated that the project can not even provide adequate sidewalk width and still provide the parking which is required. He stated that the parking which is being provided is inadequate in that a high majority of. mechanical parking machines are needed and the use of 100 percent valet parking, with the exception of two handicapped parking spaces. Therefore, Commissioner Goff stated that he could not support the motion for approval. -30- � x � c c m 7c G) roy > %� M February 24, 1983 00 • L MINUTES INDEX Chairman King stated that restaurants allover the City are being approved by the Planning Commission with valet parking because of the size of the property involved. He stated that it would be inconsistent with the Planning Commission's previous actions to deny valet parking for the proposed project. Commissioner Goff stated that the restaurants which have been approved for valet parking have only been approved with 50 percent valet parking and outside of a parking structure. Commissioner McLaughlin concurred with the comments made earlier by Commissioner Goff and stated that she would not be supporting the motion for approval. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would not be supporting the motion for approval, mainly because of her concern with the layout of the parking structure. • Commissioner Balalis stated that he has been a long time resident of the Central Balboa area. He stated that much of the traffic visiting this area is from outside of the City. He stated that the City and this area needs revitalization. He stated that the proposed project has received unanimous support from the various business and community associations of the area. He stated that there has not been one individual who has attended the two meetings relating to this project, who is opposed to the project. He reiterated that the proposed project will help to revitalize the area, just as the Fun Zone project will help to revitalize the area. He stated that if a project in the area constructs a parking structure which does not utilize valet parking, it will be filled continuously with beach visitors, meaning that patrons of the project will never be able to utilize the parking structure.. He urged the Planning Commission members to pay attention to the needs of the community. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. xickless stated that he has spoken to the Chairman of the Central Newport Beach .Community Association. He stated that he is scheduled to present . the project to the Association at their next meeting. -31- K f m � m v m 7c Gi m D City ) VI �aX MINUTES February 24, 1983 Beach ROLL CALL I III III I I INDEX Mr. Rickless stated that the Chairman of the Central Newport Beach Community Association has seen the project and feels comfortable with the project. He stated that if the Association should have any objections with the project, they will have the opportunity to express their views at the time of the City Council hearing on the project. Mr. Rickless stated that there has been plenty of publicity concerning the proposed project, .including newspaper articles, presentations to community associations, and public hearings for people to express their concerns. He reiterated that the community supports the project. He stated that the area is deteriorating and needs revitalization. In response to the comments of Mr. Rickless and • Commissioner Balalis, Commissioner Goff stated.that he also desires to see the area revitalized, however, he stated that the good of a nicer building, does not outweigh the potential bad of an aggravated parking and traffic problem. He stated that the proposed project does not adequately address the parking and traffic problems. Chairman King stated that the area is totally surrounded by visitor serving uses which are actively promoted by the State of California. He stated that he has difficulty tying the solution to the total traffic problems to one project. He stated that the staff has addressed the traffic and parking issues. Chairman King stated that persons who are concerned with various projects within the City, should address their concerns at the Planning Commission hearings, and should not wait to politicize their views at the City Council level. He urged more of the residents to become actively involved in the planning process. . I I I I I j Mr. Buzz Person stated that the residents of the area . 1 take great strides in making their area a better place to live and visit. He stated that the Central Balboa -32- � x � r c m � W 'cm X 0my D MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach t ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX N on I I I X1X1X Ayes I Noes I on I I XIXIX • district is not a depressed area. Mr. Person stated that the Balboa. Improvement Association and the community supports the project because it will improve the area and maintain the quality of the community, the support is not necessarily based upon the aesthetic point of view for the particular building. He stated that the previous use was the Bayview Hotel which was a transient hotel. He urged approval of the proposed project. Commissioner Goff stated that he can not approve .a project just because it is not as bad as the prior use. He stated that if there are so many people visiting the area as evidenced by Chairman King, then certainly. a project of a smaller magnitude. could be supported by those people. Motion by Commissioner Balalis for approval of Use Permit No. 3018, as revised, was now voted on, which MOTION FAILED. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Webb stated that a six foot sidewalk is not wide enough to accommodate trees and, tree wells. He stated that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department has recommended that tree wells be a minimum of four feet wide and six feet long. Chairman King stated that an eight foot sidewalk would accommodate some trees. Commissioner Balalis stated that if an eight foot sidewalk can be accomplished, he will not change Condition No. 18 on the resubdivision. Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 739, subject to the findings and conditions. of the staff report, which MOTION FAILED. Mr. Burnham, City Attorney, stated that the motion for approval of.the project has failed, therefore, another motion on_ the project is needed so that there is a decision of the Planning Commission. -33- 3 x � � c ��m�omm February 24, 1983 MINUTES of Newport Beach R O L L CALL X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX motion Ayes I I IXI Noes I I X X X Motion Noes I i I XI XIX Y 0 Planning Director Hewicker stated that Findings of Fact will be needed, if the project is to be denied. Mr. Burnham stated that staff can submit findings for the Planning Commission to review at the next meeting. Motion was made for denial of Use Permit, No. 3018, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made for denial of Resubdivision No. 739, which MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Balalis requested that detailed minutes be prepared for these items, in the event the decision of the Planning Commission is appealed to the City Council. Chairman King requested that the applicant submit the list from the manufacturer of the space -o -matic systems which are currently in use. (See Attachment No. 1, Findings for Denial, as adopted at the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, for Use Permit No. 3018 and Resubdivision No. 739). * x Request to consider an amendment to Chapter 20.02 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, establishing height limits on the Pacific Coast Highway Frontage, Newport Village and Corporate Plaza West Planned Community Districts and providing for the easterly and westerly extension of the sight plane over Corporate Plaza adopted March 24, 1975. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker stated that the:Harbor View Hills Community Association and The Irvine Company have reached an agreement regarding the sight .plane. He stated that the Harbor View Hills Community Association has requested that this item be removed from the agenda. -34- Item #7 AMENDMENT NO. 586 REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA n x � r c o m 7K G) m D Motion I I IX All Ayes X X X MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach INDEX Planning Director Hewicker stated that inasmuch as this item originated at the City Council level, he suggested that a report be made back to the City Council as to the outcome of this item. Motion was made to remove Item No. 7 - Amendment No. 586, from the Agenda with a report to be made to the City Council, which MOTION CARRIED. d R ! Request to permit the establishment of a take -out Item #8 restaurant facility in the C -1 District. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the additional required off - street parking spaces. I I I I I I I I LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 67 -12 • (Resubdivision No. 459) located at 1910 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner of West Balboa Boulevard and 20th Street on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Michael Potoma, Newport Beach OWNER: Eilert Voge, Los Angeles The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Michael Potoma, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of the use permit. Planning Director Hewicker stated that tables and chairs have been utilized in the take -out restaurant since 1978, without the securing of a use permit. Planning Director Hewicker stated that concerns have been expressed relating to the condition of the existing landscape ,planters and. the paper signs. on . display in the windows. -35- USE PERMIT _I NO. 3020 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY MINUTES February 24, 1983 X m � m 3 m m o. City of Newport Beach INDEX Planning Director Hewicker suggested a condition which would state, "That the existing landscape planter areas on the site shall be regularly maintained, free of weeds and debris, and all vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition." Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Municipal Code allows for 100 square feet of temporary signing for periods of time not to exceed 60 days. However, he stated that this type of provision is difficult to enforce, as evidenced by the 7/11 store and the subject use. He stated that such a condition could be imposed on the use permit, however, he stated that such a condition may put this use at an unfair advantage with the 7/11 store which is immediately next door. Chairman King asked if it would be possible to restrict the location of the signs to a portion of the window, rather than the signs covering the front of the • building. Mr. Potoma stated that perhaps some of the temporary signs on the windows could be eliminated. Planning Director Hewicker suggested a condition which would prohibit temporary signing on the windows. Commissioner Goff stated that since temporary signs are permitted for a period of 60 days, a condition which would prohibit temporary signs would not seem appropriate. However, he suggested that the appearance of the use could be improved if there were fewer signs on display. Commissioner Goff suggested that a condition be added which states that the applicant shall be responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the sidewalk and parking lot area. Mr. Potoma stated that such a, condition would be acceptable. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3020, All Ayes X X X X X X X subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", with the following additional conditions: 6) That the existing landscape planter areas on the site shall be regularly maintained, free of weeds and debris, and all vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a • healthy condition; and, 7) That the premises shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner at all times, which MOTION CARRIED: -36- 3 � 5 c m ^ a ?oso .� Of FINDINGS February 24, 1953 t Beach MINUTES INDEX 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate off - street parking spaces and traffic circulation are being provided for the proposed development. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to a portion of the requirement for walls, landscaping, utilities, and required parking spaces, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3020 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 conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. That the development standards pertaining to portions of the required walls; landscaping, utilities, and parking spaces be waived. 3. That no alcoholic beverages shall be served on -site without amending this use permit. 4. That the restaurant shall not be open before 10:00 a.m. or after 11:00 p.m, daily. I I I I I I 5. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be 40 provided in convenient locations inside and outside the building. -37- COM � r c c m m >I City VI c a m February 24, 1983 MINUTES Beach IIIIIIIII ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX U Motion All Ayes X X 6. That the existing landscape planter areas on the site shall be regularly maintained, free of weeds and debris, and all vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 7. That the premises shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner at all times. r * x Request to establish a two -unit residential condominium Item #9 project on property located in the R -2 District. AND USE PERMIT INO. 3021 Request to establish a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes where one lot presently exists. AND LOCATION: Lot 6 of Tract 4444, located at 328 Catalina Drive, on the southeasterly side of Catalina Drive between Holmwood Drive and -Broad Street in Newport Item #10 _ Heights. ZONE: R -2 RESUB- APPLICANT: Michael Fricke, Newport Beach - DIVISION NO. 741 - OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Same as applicant Both Earlier in the meeting, Chairman King stated that the Continued applicant for Items No. 9 and 10 - Use Permit No. 3021 to March and Resubdivision No. 741, had requested that these 10, 1983 items be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983. I Motion was made to continue these items to the Planning X Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. -38- n x � r c c m 7c Gf m n City VI c a A o m February 24, 1983 • MINUTES INDEX Request to construct an accessory gazebo structure I ltem #11 within the front one -half of the lot located in the R -1 -B District. LOCATION: Lot 74, Tract No. 6152, .located at- 1429.- Keel Drive, on the westerly side of Keel - PLANNI] Drive between Inlet Drive and Heron Way- - COMMIS& in Harbor View Hills. - REVIEW ZONE: - R -1 -B - - - - APPLICANTS: Mr. and Mrs. Dave Lancer, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants Earlier in the meeting, Chairman King stated that the • homeowners association involved with Item No. 11 - Planning Commission Review, had requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, so that the association can have the opportunity to review the proposed project. The applicant for this item stated that he would concur with a continuance. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Planning Director Hewicker stated that there is no appeal period involved with this item. He stated that should this item be approved at the next meeting, the applicant could proceed with construction on the gazebo, upon securing a building permit. Motion X Motion was made to All Ayes X X X X X Commission Meeting CARRIED. • continue this item to the Planning of March 10, 1983, which MOTION -39- Continued to March 10, 1983 MINUTES February 24, 1983 � s � r c m m F City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX Amendment No. 585 (Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to a portion of Districting Map No. 3 so as to reclassify property from the Unclassified District to the R -2 District. In addition, the applicant proposes to establish 10 foot front yard setbacks on said Districting Map for lot frontages adjacent to 32nd Street (extended) and 33rd Street and a 9 foot front yard setback on 31st Street. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report and the approval of a Coastal Residential Development Permit. 0 Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of nineteen residential units. 0 11111111 AND Use Permit No. 3022 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of nine individual two -unit residential condominium projects and related garages, on property proposed for rezoning to the R -2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning .Code so as to allow minor building encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas. AND Tentative Map of Tract No. 11906 (Public Hearing) Request to subdivide 1.65 acres of land into nine lots for residential condominium development, one lot for residential duplex development and one lot for single family residential development. The application also includes a request for exceptions to the.. Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of corner lots. containing less than 60 foot widths and less than 6,000 square feet in land area, and interior lots containing less than 50 foot widths and less than 5,000 square • feet in land area. The proposal also includes a request to establish grades for the purpose of measuring heights of proposed buildings. The request -40- ITEMS NO. 12 THRU 15 ALL CONTINUED TO MARCH 24, 1983 COMANSSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 � r c m w. } ROL L CA City of Newport Beach LL INDEX also includes the extension of Seashore Drive from 33rd Street to Balboa Boulevard and the extension of. two existing alleys. LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 31 and 32 of the Lake Tract, located at 120 32nd Street, on the southwesterly side of west Balboa Boulevard between 31st Street and 33rd Street, in West Newport. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Max Morgan, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant. ENGINEER: Donald E. Stevens, Costa Mesa (, I 11 I I I ( I I I Agenda Items No. 12 through 15 were heard concurrently, due to their relationship. In response to questions posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Planning Director Hewicker stated that The State Clearinghouse official review period for the environmental impact report on this project will end on March 4, 1983. He stated that staff has placed these items on the Agenda so that testimony may be taken and questions asked. He further stated that this will not set a precedent relating to the processing of other projects. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Richard Brumfield, architect for the project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Brumfield referred to Page 11 and of the staff report and stated that the environmental impact report has addressed a number of different options available for this particular piece of property. He stated that they feel that the proposal is a reasonable compromise of all of the issues presented. • IIIIII11 _41_ n x � r c Q m A G m D c a _5 ° - m February 24, 1983 itv of Newport Beach MINUTES R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX • 0 Mr. Brumfield referred to Page 12 of the staff report and stated that the proposal is requesting 19 units. He stated that the R -2 development standards would only permit 10 units on the site which constitutes an enormous land cost burden for.the applicant. He stated that a higher density project consisting of 28 units would be more in compliance with adjacent property uses, but that they are only requesting 19 units. He added that they are requesting slight modifications for the proposed setbacks. Mr. Brumfield stated that they do not have much control over the affordable housing issue. He stated that this issue needs to be carefully defined and guidelines established, but that the processing should continue. He stated that they are prepared to provide two, on -site affordable housing units to comply with the Mello Bill Chairman King referred to Mr. Brumfield's comment in which he stated .that compliance with the R -2 development standard for 10 units would create a financial hardship. He questioned why it is. not possible for the applicant to develop a project which is affordable to the site, rather than having the City remedy the project so that it becomes profitable, after the fact. Mr. Brumfield stated that one. of the major problems with this particular site is'the extension of Seashore Avenue, which reduces the land area of the project by approximately 36 percent. He stated that this has a significant impact upon the project. Chairman King stated that the buyer of the project should have been aware of this issue. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Brumfield stated that there would be five buildable lots resulting in 10 units for the R -2 District, if no, modifications to the Zoning Code were being requested. -42- r c m ^ m c m G1 y D ?ago -m MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Allen referred to Page 10 of the EIR and stated that the calculations in the EIR relating to the units per buildable acre are not consistent with the staff report calculations. 'Planning Director Hewicker referred to Page 4 of the staff .report and stated that development of the 1.65 acre site will result in a net buildable area of 1.1 acres. He stated that the development of these units on the site will represent a density of 17.3 units per buildable acre. Commissioner Allen referred to Page 55 of the EIR, relating to the CNEL contours, and stated that according to Figure 4.4, the noise impact contours will be quieter in 1995 than it will be in 1983. She asked if this could be correct. Mr. Mike Wright, consultant with Westec Services, Inc., which prepared the draft environmental impact report, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Wright stated that • the 1995 contours do not indicate that it is getting quieter, but show that the distance of the 65 CNEL is moving further into the site. He stated that this indicates that more of the noise will be moving into the site. He stated that the noise source is from Balboa Boulevard. He further stated that the second story elevation of the project will experience greater noise than the ground floor elevation. Commissioner Allen referred to Page 48 of the EIR and stated that the noise measurements were taken on January 7th. She asked if these measurements are pro- rated over the course of the year to include summer traffic noise. Mr. Wright stated that the noise contours have made allowances for summer traffic and for growth in the traffic. Commissioner Allen requested two charts which indicate noise impact levels from April to September, versus noise impact levels from September to April. Mr. Wright stated that they will provide the requested charts. Commissioner Allen referred to Page 45 of the EIR, Item No. 5 and asked for clarification on the statement, that a 10 foot sidewalk may also be provided on the eastern side of Seashore Drive depending upon final specifications by the City Engineer. Mr. Don Webb, • City Engineer, stated that on Seashore Drive there will -43- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 � R ro � m m m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX be a 13 foot wide sidewalk on the ocean side and a 10 foot wide sidewalk on the inland side. Commissioner Allen asked if the guest parking spaces are being provided on the public street or on an interior street. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the guest parking spaces are located on the street, just as in any other residential area. He stated that there are parking spaces adjacent to the alley and additional on- street parking which is not provided at this time. Commissioner Allen expressed her concern that the on- street parking on Seashore Drive will not likely be available for guest parking. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the setbacks were to be increased to 20 feet, as required by the Code, the building would still be located inside of the 65 CNEL. • Commissioner Goff referred to Page 30 of the EIR, Item F, and. asked if the square footages listed refer to proposed projects or to potential build -out. Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that the square footages listed refer to the potential build -out of the various specific area plans. Commissioner Goff asked if there are any easements on the property, other than the bike trail and the extension of Seashore Drive to 32nd Street, which would affect where the buildings could be located on the project site. Mr. Webb stated that there is a sewer line which is located in 32nd Street, otherwise, he stated that he is not aware of any other easements. Mr. Max Morgan, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Morgan stated that all of the easements on the property were taken off by Southern Pacific at the time of the escrow. He stated that escrow on the property was closed on December 17, 1982.. He stated that the City owns half of the proposed extension of Seashore Drive to 32nd Street and the easement of an alley which bisects the project on both sides. He stated that the requirements for the setbacks and the sidewalks have caused problems for the • project because of the actual amount of land which is remaining. -44- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 � r c City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL7=1 INDEX Mr. Morgan discussed the parking distribution for the proposed project. He also stated that the City should be responsible for the Mello Bill, rather than having the Orange County Housing Authority make the determination. He stated that they will abide by the City's requirement for the Mello Bill. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Morgan stated that the alley is 20 feet with a 21 foot parking apron located behind the garage. He stated that there is a 2' foot setback in the alley in which a vehicle can not protrude. Mr. Morgan stated that all of. the utilities for the project will be located underground. He stated that the project will utilize a Cape Cod theme and described the various layouts of the proposed units. He stated . that the Mello units will not differ in quality from the other units. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Morgan stated that there are 24 guest parking spaces on -site, not counting the garage spaces or the parking spaces on Seashore Drive which will be provided. n ►.J In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Brumfield stated that depending on the lot, the floor area ratio ranges from 1.1 buildable area to 1.8 buildable area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Morgan stated that the project will provide for enclosed garages which will utilize roll -up doors. Mr. Louis Kaufman, resident of 112 32nd Street, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Kaufman stated that the proposed sidewalk and bicycle path will be located immediately adjacent to his home. He expressed his concern with the bicycles utilizing the path, and his safety. He stated that the bicycle path belongs on the street. -45- MINUTES February 24, 1983 m City of Newport Beach Mr. Webb stated that the survey which was conducted for the parcel map indicates that the corner property line of Mr. Kaufman's house is located at the back of the sidewalk. He stated that some of the fencing installed at the house is on what use to be the Southern Pacific property. He stated that Mr. Kaufman's house was constructed in 1907. Mr. Kaufman requested that a three foot easement be provided between his house and the sidewalk. Mr. Webb stated that the sidewalk width of 13 feet is being recommended for the project which will provide for joint pedestrian and bicycle uses. He stated that the sidewalk will provide the ability of bicycles to get from Balboa Boulevard to Seashore Drive to join the bicycle trail. He stated that the sidewalk will be close to Mr. Kaufman's house on one corner, but his house has been constructed on the property line. • In response to a question posed by Commnissioner Goff, Mr. Kaufman stated that they propose to trade the back corner of Parcel 7, for the front. Mr. Webb stated: that deficiencies are common in right -of -way lines which were granted many years ago. He stated that the proposed trade will not affect the front property line. Commissioner Allen suggested that the street could be moved further away from the house and the turn on Seashore Drive could be made more gentle and the corner rounded out. She stated that what would be lost on one side could be taken off of Lot 6 on the other side. She stated that in this way, the necessary width can be provided which will not take away from Mr. Kaufman's property. Motion X Motion was made to continue these items to the Planning All Ayes X X X X Commission Meeting of March 24, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. r1 u ffm INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 m = m y City of Newport Beach ROLL ALL LL INDEX Request to consider an amendment to 'a portion of Item #16 Districting Map No. 3 so as to reclassify.property from the C -1, C -1 -H and Unclassified Districts to the C -1 -H [0.25) District, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: The Smith's Food King Market shopping . center property, located on - the AMENDMENT southeasterly side of 32nd Street NO. 583 between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard in Central Newport. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Commissioner Goff referred to Finding No. 3. of Amendment No. 583 and suggested that the wording be revised as follows: 3) That the proposed zone change will limit the allowable buildable area on the site to • 3,500 square feet more than the existing floor area in the shopping center. Staff stated that they would concur with the revision. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Amendment. No. 583 and All Ayes X X X X X X the related environmental document, subject to the . following findings, with the revision to Finding No. 3 as noted, which MOTION CARRIED: - Amendment No. 583 Findings:: 1. That the requested rezoning amendment is consistent with the Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the Adopted Local Coastal Program. 2. That the proposed amendment will eliminate the confusion of different zoning classifications on the subject property. 3. That the proposed zone change will limit the • allowable buildable area on the site to 3,500 square feet more than the existing floor area in the shopping center. -47- n 7C m � m A R] February 24, 1983 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX C� Environmental Document Findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially- significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. * * x Request to consider a proposed amendment to Chapter Item #17 20.02 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to permitting the installation of roof mounted solar energy systems in excess of height limits. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach - - -- Motion X Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1087, All Ayes N X X X X X X recommending to the City Council that Amendment No. 584 be approved, with the following changes to Sections 20.02.061 and 20.02.063 of the Municipal Code and the addition of the definition for _ "Solar Equipment" to Chapter 20.87 of the Zoning Code: APPROVED 20.02.061 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND SOLAR EQUIPMENT. Architectural features such as, but not limited to, cupolas, weathervanes, wrought iron railings, and other decorative roof.. top features of an open nature; and solar equipment, may be permitted in excess of height limits subject to the approval of the Planning . Commission. 150 0 A ro m City of Qm�x� February 24, 1983 Beach MINUTES M R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX ■ • Motion X All Ayes N X X X • 20.02.063 PARAPET WALLS, - ELEVATOR AND MECHANICAL PENTHOUSES, AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. Parapet walls, elevator and mechanical penthouses, and mechanical equipment (excluding solar equipment), and other items not expressly permitted in excess of the height limits shall be prohibited. 20.87.283 SOLAR EQUIPMENT.. The term "solar ment" shall mean any solar collector, aht. or other solar enerav device whose space heating or cooling, water heating, or for power generation. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Excused Absence Motion was made for an excused absence for Commissioner Balalis from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. 200 W. Coast Highway Discussion Commissioner Allen referred to the previously approved Use Permit No. 3005, for the 7 -11 Rent -A-Car facility located at 200 W. Coast Highway. She expressed her concern with the landscaping plan relating to the size, type and number of plants which have been installed. She further expressed her concern with the size and intensity of illumination of the three - sided sign. Planning Director Hewicker stated that there are complicated issues related to the landscaping and what the State will permit within their right -of- way. He stated that the lighting plan is half of what was requested. He stated that he will make these concerns known, before the final inspection on the lighting, landscaping, fence and signs is arranged. Iffm BUSINESS 3 � � � c Q m T� G1 m D City of 3 g m z H February 24, 1983 i'. MINUTES I I I I I I I I I ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 III I I INDEX • • There being no further business;' the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:58 p.m. Dave Goff, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -50- (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) • FINDINGS FOR DENIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3018 and RESUBDIVISION 739 AS ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MARCH 10, 1983 USE PERMIT NO. 3018 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 3. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan; the Land Use Plan of the Local • Coastal Program as conditionally certified by the Coastal Commission and accepted by the City Council; but may not be compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. The proposed use of not independently accessible and compact car spaces will, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the use is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3018 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 or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. • 6. That in the opinion of the Planning Commission, the increased building height will not result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 51 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3018 and RESUBDIVISION NO. 739 ADOPTED MARCH 10, 1983 • PAGE TWO 7. The increased building height will not result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than could be provided with in the basic height limit. 8. The increased building height will result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. 9. That the proposed project including the office portion thereof will not be in keeping with the desired character of the specific plan area as identified in the General Plan. 10. That the proposed use may preclude the attainment of the Specific Area Plan objectives stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 11. That the use of the space- o -matic parking system for a high percentage of total parking to be • provided is not in the best interest of the community and will not allow for adequate on -site off - street parking. 12. That the project will add congestion to an area that is presently heavily impacted. 13. That the use of valet parking and space -o -matic parking machines is not appropriate for this use and location. 14. That the proposed project exceeds the basic height limit. 15. That the proposed project can not provide adequate sidewalks and street trees; and provide parking as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code and as recommended by the Planning and Public Works Department. 16. That the use of 100 percent valet parking for the project is not appropriate for this use and location. 17. That the proposed layout of the parking structure is not reasonable. • 18. That the advantages of the revitalized area do not override the potential problems of an aggravated parking and traffic problem. 50Z FINDINGS FOR DENIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3018 and RESUBDIVISION NO. 739 ADOPTED MARCH 10, 1983 . PAGE THREE 19. That the proposed project does not adequately address potential traffic and parking problems. 20. That previous actions of the City on the "Fun Zone" project are not directly related to actions on this site, due to the unique historical nature of the "Fun Zone" site and its relationship to the overall community identity. RESUBDIVISION NO. 739 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is not satisfied with the plan of subdivision. • 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements may conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision along Edgewater Place. 4. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 5. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigations measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 6. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan; the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program as conditionally certified by the • Coastal Commission and accepted by the City Council; but may not be compatible with surrounding land uses. 53 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3018 and RESUBDIVISION NO. 739 ADOPTED MARCH 10, 1983 • PAGE FOUR 7. That the use of the space -o -matic parking system for a high percentage of total parking to be provided is not in the best interest of the community and will not allow for adequate on -site off - street parking. S. That the project will add congestion to an area that is presently heavily impacted. 9. That the use of valet parking and space -o -matic parking machines is not appropriate for this use and location. 10. That the proposed project exceeds the basic height limit. 11. That the proposed project can not provide adequate sidewalks and street trees; and provide parking as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code and as recommended by the Planning and Public Works Department. . 12. That the use of 100 percent valet parking for the project is not appropriate for this use and location. 13. That the proposed layout of the parking structure is not reasonable. 14. That the advantages of the revitalized area do not override the potential problems of an aggravated parking and traffic problem. 15. That the proposed project does not adequately address potential traffic and parking problems. 16. That previous actions of the City on the "Fun Zone" project are not directly related to actions on this site, due to the unique historical nature of the "Fun Zone" site and its relationship to the overall community identity. • 07y