Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/10/1983Kelm MMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING *jXj Commissioner Balalis was absent. * * * EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, City Attorney * * * 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 MINUTES APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. Minutes of February 24, 1983 Motion x Motion was made for approval.of the Planning Commission All Ayes X X X X * X Minutes of February 24, 1983, as written, incorporating the Findings for Denial on Use Permit No. 3018 and Resubdivision No.. 739, as indicated on the Additional Business staff report, which MOTION CARRIED. 4& Pa. l Staff recommended that 'Item No. 12 - Variance No. 1096 be removed from the calendar, inasmuch as it has been determined that the approval of a variance is no longer required in this matter. * * * -1- INDEX PLACE: City Council Chambers g TIME: 7:30 p.m. m DATE: March 10, 1983 m m City of Newport Beach *jXj Commissioner Balalis was absent. * * * EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, City Attorney * * * 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 MINUTES APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. Minutes of February 24, 1983 Motion x Motion was made for approval.of the Planning Commission All Ayes X X X X * X Minutes of February 24, 1983, as written, incorporating the Findings for Denial on Use Permit No. 3018 and Resubdivision No.. 739, as indicated on the Additional Business staff report, which MOTION CARRIED. 4& Pa. l Staff recommended that 'Item No. 12 - Variance No. 1096 be removed from the calendar, inasmuch as it has been determined that the approval of a variance is no longer required in this matter. * * * -1- INDEX MMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1953 � r c m � m m m y City of Newport Beach Highway and Superior Avenue (as INDEX General Plan Amendment 81 -2 (Public Hearing) Items No. 1 and 2 GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open AND Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Space Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach ZONE: O -S (Open Space) District . - General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental PROPONENT: State of California, Department of AMENDMENT document. GENERAL Transportation NO. 2 PLAN TO THE - AMENDMENT . CALTRANS WEST 'No. 81 -2 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 - - 0 11111111 -2- LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open AND Space ZONE: O -S (Open Space) District . - PROPONENT: State of California, Department of AMENDMENT Transportation NO. 2 TO THE . NEWPORT . BEACH FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS - LOCAL COASTAL LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between PROGRAM 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 - - 0 11111111 -2- a m 7c m Y m � m ROLL CALL March 10, 1983 Pon BIG CANYON AREA 16 Beach MINUTES INDEX 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 CAMPUS DRIVE LOCATION: 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 -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 3 7 m � m m N. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX AND Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (Public Hearing) 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 Chairman King opened the public hearing and testimony was taken on the following items, beginning with CalTrans West: CALTRANS WEST Commissioner Goff stated that he envisions the upgrading of the western portion of the City which will add to the pride of the West Newport residents, as well as provide scenic and recreational aspects for the entire City. He stated that the many of the proposed General Plan Amendment components for the CalTrans West parcel can make this a reality. Commissioner Goff then distributed to the Planning. Commission his recommendations for. the CalTrans West parcel as follows: ME CALTRANS WEST • • MINUTES March 10, 1983 � r c m N. City of Newport Beach * Same as staff recommendation ° Revised + New Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: * 1. "Multiple - Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. * 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. + 3. Subject to further review and approval by the City' of Newport Beach, the developer or developers involved may transfer dwelling units permitted on CalTrans West to Area 3 of the Banning - Newport Ranch. Area 3 of the Banning - Newport Ranch may not exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. + 4. The preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. A reasonable effort must be made to establish this access from Bluff Road at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the CalTrans West site if it is submitted prior to tentative maps for the Banning - Newport Ranch. Temporary and limited access may be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. ° 5. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved* for a line -of -sight 4 feet above the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence. * 6. 208 of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. * 7. 108 of the total dwelling' units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. -5- INDEX 3 F m � m 7. Q m 0 my D c ? d 5 p Ic March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES R O L L CALL I 1 1 1 III I I INDEX * Same as staff recommendation Revised + New ° 8. CalTrans west will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended) , and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended) . The specific size, location, design, and the means to acquire and develop the park 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 unit. * 9. A view park of ± 1 acre shall be located on -site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the • Newport Beach Municipal Code. +10. A pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be developed to connect the view park with the neighborhood park. The easement shall as much as possible be located to take advantage of ocean and bay views. Precise location and design shall be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. +11. The applicant or successor in interest shall participate in 508 of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue at. a point to be determined in conjunction with the location of the view park at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 012. A landscaped greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. *13. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry .onto that property required for realignment of Superior • Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. ME � r c m � a a • • MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach * Same as staff recommendation ° Revised + New *14. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it has restricted access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. *15. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Commissioner Goff referred to proposed Condition No. 11 and stated that both CalTrans and Hoag Hospital have indicated that they would be interested in participating in the financing of the pedestrian and bicycle bridge, at the tentative tract map stage. Commissioner Allen referred to proposed Condition No. 12 and stated wording should be added which would clarify that the 30 foot wide greenbelt is not a part of the park dedication requirement. She then referred to proposed Condition No. 9 and stated that the Commission will have to decide if the view park should be considered as a part of the park dedication requirement. Commissioner Goff stated that the park dedication requirements imposed by the Planning Commission should be consistent on the CalTrans West parcel and the Fifth Avenue parcels. Commissioner McLaughlin referred to proposed Condition No. 3 and asked if there are legal ramifications in the transferring of dwelling units. -7- INDEX f 'a m 7, 6Y m n MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that the transferring of dwelling units does not create an impact, as long as there is no reduction in the number of units the developer of the Banning - Newport Ranch parcel is required to provide. Mr. David Simmes, representing the State of California, Department of Transportation, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Simmes referred to proposed Condition No. 5 and stated that in order to be consistent with the approved Banning- Newport Ranch development, the line -of -sight should be 5 feet, rather than 4 feet. Mr. Simmes also referred to proposed Condition No. 10, relating to the pedestrian and bicycle easement and stated that CalTrans would he willing to agree to such an easement, if it is the desire of the City. Mr. Simmes referred to proposed Condition No. 9, relating to park dedication requirements, and stated • that the CalTrans West parcel consists of 13.6 acres. He stated that when the streets, bluffs, and greenbelts are deducted, there is a dwindling amount of land to develop. He requested that a credit for the park dedication requirement be considered. Mr. Michael Johnson, resident of 220 Nice Lane, stated that today was the fiftieth anniversary of the California earthquake which occurred in 1933 and referred to an article which appeared in The Register dated March 10, 1983. He expressed his concern with the density of people the proposed development will generate into the unstable seismic area of the Newport- Inglewood fault. He stated that if such an earthquake should occur again, the City would be sued for the damages and for not properly recognizing the _ danger. He then requested that the site designation remain as open space. Chairman King stated that Mr. Johnson resides in a heavily populated area across the street from the proposed development, and asked Mr. Johnson to clarify his concern. Mr. Johnson stated that he lives on stable land, whereas the proposed development, across the street, will be located on the seismic fault. • IIIIIIII INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 � r c m � m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I INDEX Mr. Burnham stated that in the event of such an earthquake, the City would be immune from any liability that may result from injury to persons or property, if the buildings are constructed to the standards as specified in the Health and Safety Code. Mr. Chris Hansen, resident of 22 Encore Court, and President of the Newport Crest Homeowners Association, thanked the staff, the Planning Commission and Mr. Simmes of CalTrans for their cooperation relating to the proposed recommendations of the General' Plan Amendment. Mr. Hansen stated that their concerns relating to security and the proximity of the greenbelt to Newport Crest, traffic, access to the property, view preservation and the park issue, have all been communicated to CalTrans and the Planning Commission. He stated that the residents of West Newport hope and trust that the proposal will be a development which • they can live with and be proud of. Mrs. Louise Greeley, resident of 16 Swift Court, and a member of the Board of Directors for Newport Crest, appeared before the Commission. Mrs. Greeley stated that she has been actively involved with obtaining a park site on the CalTrans parcel since 1976. She suggested that a development agreement be executed between CalTrans West, Banning- Newport Ranch, and the City, to make the five acre park which is planned for the immediate area, available for use before the development takes place on CalTrans West or the Banning - Newport Ranch property. Chairman King expressed his concern as to when the park can occur. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the approval on the Banning = Newport Ranch development states that the park of approximately 5 acres in size, shall be developed and completed concurrent with the occupancy of the first residential tract on the Banning - Newport Ranch tract. He stated that if the Banning - Newport Ranch site were to be developed in its entirety and to the maximum extent, it would generate the need for a 6' acre park site. He stated that their requirement was for a park site of approximately 5 acres, thereby leaving a 1� acre park requirement which could be collected through in -lieu fees. W � m m Ici C 6 = p March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Planning Director Hewicker referred to proposed Condition No. 8 and stated that this recommendation attempts to tie the two developments together. He stated that the park would be developed concurrently with the first occupancy of units, regardless of whether the occupancy occurs on the CalTrans West or Banning - Newport Ranch property. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the CalTrans West site alone, does not generate the need for a five acre park site. He stated that in considering the recommendations on the CalTrans West site, relating to the size of the greenbelts, the pedestrian and bicycle bridge across Superior Avenue, the establishment of views parks and bicycle trails, the staff has concerns as to how all of the requirements will be balanced on the proposed project. He stated that the suggestion of a development agreement between all parties involved, may be a possibility. . Mr. Burnham stated that the 5 acre park site can not be located entirely on the CalTrans west parcel. He further stated that the requirements for view parks and the other amenities as indicated, reduces the amount of low and moderate income units which can be built, as the cost of developing the parcel becomes greater. He then explained the recent amendments to the Quimby Act which may require the City to restrict the park dedication ordinance so that the dedications are 3 acres per 1,000 people, as opposed to the present 5 acres per 1,000 people. Mr. Burnham stated that the language which is proposed in Condition No. 8, gives the City the best assurance that the 5 acre active park will. be completed as soon as possible. He stated that CalTrans should commit that any subsequent purchaser of the CalTrans West site shall be advised of the condition and any agreement for purchase shall contain the requirement that the purchaser comply with that condition. Commissioner Allen stated that the parcels in question are currently vacant and that the children who live in West Newport have no park in which to play. She. suggested that a temporary park site be established. • Otherwise, she stated that it is possible that the children who currently live in West Newport, will no longer be children by the time the occupancy of the first residential unit occurs on either project. -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 c3i c ? m = W v m G1 m D Is 9 m m y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I INDEX Mr. Burnham stated that in order to accomplish a temporary park site on private property, the consent of the property owner will be needed or the City will have to purchase the property. He stated that the City can not require a private property owner or a developer to establish a temporary park site because the Planning Commission is not approving any actual development on the site at this time, the Commission is only considering a General Plan Amendment for general land uses on the property. Mr. Burnham stated that assuming that the City were to acquire in -lieu fees from the CalTrans west development, the City could then negotiate with Banning - Newport Ranch for the purchase and development of the park site, with the City to be reimbursed by Banning - Newport Ranch at the time the Banning- Newport Ranch site is developed. He stated that in this way, prompt development of an active park site can be • accomplished. Planning Director Hewicker referred to two letters dated March 10, 1983, which had been received, relating to the CalTrans West portion of General Plan Amendment 81 -2. He stated that one letter was received from Mr. Michael Stephens, Administrator at Hoag Memorial Hospital, which stated that Hoag Memorial Hospital is interested in purchasing the CalTrans East property from the State and acknowledges the City's interest for a bicycle trail along the top of the CalTrans East and West bluff line, view park sites and a pedestrian overpass across Superior Avenue. The other letter was received from Mr. Richard L. Owen, a real estate consultant, which stated that he was the President of the corporation that developed Newport Crest and that the prices on the lots that faced the ocean were reduced to the equivalent prices that were in the courts to the north. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Planning Director Hewicker stated that Mr. Owen's letter indicates that little or no view premiums- • were paid for the lots on the southerly edge of the Newport Crest development, between the original developer of the property and the original purchasers. -11- MMiSSIONERS March 10, 1983 � r c 0 = m m m y City of Newport Beach MINUTES ■ ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX • • Mr. Hansen stated that they can provide the City with documentation that the lots located along the bluff side carried an original premium price. Planning Director Hewicker referred to proposed Condition No. 1 and stated that this is a density of development which will adequately provide for a residential development which will help to satisfy the City's need for affordable dwelling units. He stated that a prospective purchaser of the site will be made aware of the restrictions which have been placed upon the parcel. However, he stated that as the buildable acreage of the site begins to dwindle, because of the restrictions imposed, he suggested that perhaps instead of specifying a specific density of dwelling units per acre, that a certain number of affordable units to be built upon the property be specified and in addition, that additional market rate units can be built up to a point that the density would not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner McLaughlin asked how this would affect the Mello Bill requirements. Planning Director Hewicker' stated that 10 percent of the total dwelling units would still have to meet the State .standards for affordability. Chairman King stated that there are no density bonuses included in this proposal. Commissioner Goff stated that if the 5 acre park were entirely on the CalTrans West site, along with the requirements for greenbelts, bike trails, and view parks, the number of dwelling units per buildable acre would be greatly reduced. However, he stated that if the number of dwelling units were to be calculated, assuming that the park site would not be located on the parcel, and the park site was to be located on the site, the density amounts would be unacceptable, such as 30 dwelling units to the buildable acre* for the remainder of the site. Commissioner McLaughlin referred to proposed Condition No. 5 and asked Commissioner Goff if he would consider the line -of -sight at 5 feet to be consistent with the Banning - Newport Ranch development, rather than at 4 feet. Commissioner Goff stated that he had recommended _ the line -of -sight at 4. feet because of the difference in the nature of the views from the Newport Crest units -12- MINUTES March 10, 1963 � c m = W m n City of Newport Beach ni, 01:, adjacent to CalTrans West, as opposed to those adjacent to the Banning- Newport Ranch development. Commissioner Goff stated that the ocean views adjacent to the CalTrans West parcel are much closer and a large portion of the residents outdoor living space is utilized while sitting, rather than standing on their balconies. He stated that the difference in the nature of the views, warrants a 4 foot line -of- sight, rather than a 5 foot line -of- sight. In response to a question posed by Commissioner - Winburn, Planning Director Hewicker referred to an exhibit which depicted the existing and potential line -of -sight views of the ocean from the area in question. He stated that the white water view exists only looking towards Huntington Beach. Commissioner Goff stated that the intent of his proposed recommendation is not to enhance any views, but to preserve the existing views. • . Commissioner Kurlander referred to proposed Condition No. 3 and asked how additional dwelling units could be transferred to the already approved Banning - Newport Ranch development. Planning Director Hewicker stated that in Area 3 of the Banning- Newport Ranch, they. have the ability to go up to 15 dwelling units per acre, provided that they build fewer units in the lower portion of their development. He stated that in order to accomplish this, a transfer would have to be entered into between the Banning - Newport Ranch, the future owner of the CalTrans West _parcel, - and -the City. Commissioner Goff stated that it is a possibility that the same developer would develop both the residential portions of the CalTrans West parcel and the Banning - Newport Ranch parcel. He stated that the proposed recommendation would allow the flexibility for the transfer of .dwelling units, not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Commissioner Winburn referred to proposed Condition No. 3 and asked for clarification from the City Attorney. Mr. Burnham stated that the proposed language is consistent with the current General Plan covering the Banning - Newport Ranch parcel, if densities could go up to 15 dwelling units per buildable acre in Area 3. -13- MINUTES March 10, 1983 3 � City of Newport Beach INDEX Planning Director Hewicker stated that the overall, average density on the Banning - Newport Ranch project is limited to 11.5 dwelling units per buildable acre. He stated that Area 3 is allowed to go up to 15 dwelling units per buildable acre, if there is a substantial reduction in dwelling units in other areas of the property. Mr. Burnham stated that in order for this condition to become valid, the Banning- Newport Ranch must build fewer units than entitled, to allow the 15 dwelling units per buildable acre in Area 3. He stated that it could be considered more of a relocation of dwelling units, rather than an actual transfer. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Burnham stated that the proposed language' is consistent with the current General Plan covering the Banning - Newport Ranch parcel, but may not accomplish the Commission's objective. Planning Director Hewicker referred to the last • sentence of proposed Condition No. 14 and suggested that the word "has" be changed to the word "will ". He stated that this will be consistent with the future rezoning of .CalTrans West from the Open Space designation to a Planned Community. Commissioner ' Allen suggested that additional' clarification should be added to Condition No. 12, which would state that park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt. Commissioner Allen stated that she can understand the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission concern that view parks not be included as a portion of the park dediction requirement. However, she.stated that from a planning perspective, rather than a parks maintenance perspective, some areas of the City need view parks and it would, be unfair to require the view parks and not give park credit. Therefore, she stated that she would support Condition No. 9 as currently worded. I I ( i I I I Commissioner Kurlander stated that he could support a motion for the approval of the CalTrans West item, if Condition No. 3 were to be deleted. He stated that Condition No. 3 creates confusion and does not • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 accomplish the objectives of the Commission. -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 n x "e r � w = m a m w City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLIIII III INDEX The following Straw Vote was taken on CALTRANS WEST: Motion x Motion was made to approve the CalTrans West portion of Ayes X X X X X the General Plan Amendment 81 -2, subject to the Absent * alternatives proposed by Commissioner Goff which were distributed earlier, with the following revisions: Condition No. 3 be deleted; that the word "has" be changed to the word "will" in Condition No. 14; and; additional wording to Condition No. 12 which would state that park credit shall not be given for the: greenbelt, which MOTION CARRIED: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: 1. "Multiple- Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. • 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. Deleted by the Planning Commission. 4. The preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. A reasonable effort must be made to establish this access from Bluff Road at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the CalTrans West site if it is submitted prior to tentative maps for the Banning - Newport Ranch. Temporary and limited access may be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 5. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight 4 feet above the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence. 6. 20% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. • 7. 108 of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. -15- � r c 'v m M 7C G) a 3�mm�y� MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach INDEX S. CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended) , and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design, and the means to acquire and develop the park 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 unit. 9. A view park of ± 1 acre shall be located on -site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. I I I I I I 10. A pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be • developed to connect the view park with the neighborhood park. The easement shall as much as possible be located to take advantage of ocean and bay views. Precise location and design shall be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 11. The applicant or successor in interest shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue at a point to be determined in conjunction with the location of the view park at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 12. A landscaped greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be. a minimum of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. Park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt. 13. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the . procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. -16- CALL • M � r c m � m Q m X G) D MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach 14. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans west shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 15. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute .a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS: Area A Mr. Bernard Maniscalco, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Maniscalco referred to a letter dated March 10, 1983, from Mr. Richard Sim, of The Irvine Company, in which the following language was proposed for Conditions No. 10 and 11: 10. A condition to any subdivision approval for this, site. will be that the developer enter into a subdivision agreement with the. City to make a number of units equal to 10% of the total units in the subdivision available to low and moderate income families using City standards, which affordable units may be provided on -site or on other sites in the City. The subdivision agreement shall allow, the developer to meet the affordable housing requirement within 3 years of the date of tentative tract map approval. • -17- INDEX FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS COMMISSK)I`%fRS MINUTES is March 10, 1983 m � m q. City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLIIII III INDEX 11. At the time of future discretionary actions the project may be required to contribute a sum equal to its fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and any other similar mitigation measures, as required by the ordinances and resolutions of the City in force at the time of such actions. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that Condition No. 10, as proposed by The Irvine Company, is not consistent with the City's Housing Element. Therefore, he suggested that Condition No. 10, on Page 10 of the staff report, be revised as follows: "That a number of units equal to at least 108 of the total units be constructed on -site or off -site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards." He stated that the last sentence of the condition in the staff report should be deleted. I I I I I I In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Maniscalco stated that the revised language proposed by Mr. Burnham for Condition No. 10 would be acceptable. Mr. Burnham further stated that staff does not concur with the proposed language by The Irvine Company for Condition No. 11. He stated that the proposed language eliminates any reference to mitigation measures which may be required as a .result of the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Maniscalco referred to Condition No. 11 and stated that the City must take the necessary steps to identify what the fair share contribution. will be. He stated that public hearings should be provided by the City so. that all property owners can be, heard on the issue and the fair share contribution can be determined through a City ordinance or resolution, rather than the fair share contribution becoming a condition on the tract map. In response to a question posed by Chairman King; Mr. Burnham stated that approval of a tentative tract map would have to comply with all of the City's adopted • ordinances, resolutions and the Traffic Phasing ordinance pursuant to Council Policy. IFM n 7C m = m MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Burnham stated that Condition No. 11 as currently worded in the staff report, allows the City the flexibility to address future problems and would be consistent with the Subdivision Map Act. He further stated that the City's previous actions on requiring contributions, such as the park issue, have been upheld, as long as they are supplementary to the tract map requirements and the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Maniscalco stated that implementing a fair share fund under a general plan amendment, does not constitute due process. Mr. Burnham stated that there will be at least two public hearings at the time the zoning is applied to the property and when the tract map is processed. Mr. Maniscalco referred to an aerial photograph depicting the Marguerite Avenue Parcel and stated that they are proposing that the parcel be changed from low density residential of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre, to medium density residential of 10 dwelling units per buildable acre. He stated that the proposal takes advantage of the sloping ground, which allows protection of views from Harbor View Hills and Marguerite Avenue. He stated that the proposal also includes the generation of a view park with trail systems and that the park will be dedicated to the City. He stated that park credit will be granted to this parcel, however, the park credit will only be equal to the flat areas, which would be approximately three - quarters of an acre. He stated that receiving park credit for this parcel is a very important part of the proposed project. In response to a concern expressed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Maniscalco stated that the trees to be utilized in the view park will be maintained so that they will not obstruct any views. He further stated that the Planned Community requirements for this project would specify the height limitations on vegetation, as well as height limitations on the • structures. -19- n � m = m Q �O` 7, G) �y D MINUFES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Lloyd Crausy, resident of 4015 Topside Lane, and President of Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Crausy expressed their concern as to how many lots can be transferred from Area C to permit higher density in Areas A or B. He referred to Condition No. 9 of the staff report and stated that reference should be made to Harbor View Hills South, rather than Harbor View Hills East. He expressed their concern with the definition for the height of a person. He stated that their CC &R's require that they preserve views down to 2 feet above the first floor level. He stated that this permits a sitting person at a 3 foot height to have the view unobstructed. He suggested that a number be specified in this condition, and recommended that a maximum of 3 feet be utilized. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the . site plane in Harbor View Hills is based upon a eye level height of 5 feet of a.person standing in the view yard. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Commission, referring to Condition No. 2 and stated that the recreational designation can not be removed, if it does not currently exist on the parcel or on the recreational open space maps. He also referred to Condition No. 6 and asked for clarification as to how the Orange County Flood Control District Easement will affect the park dedication requirement. Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator,_ referred to an exhibit which depicted the recorded easements on the property and the flat areas of the property. He suggested an additional sentence could be added to Condition No. 6 as follows: Land given credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement. Mr. Kennedy stated that the environmental document should be corrected to indicate that Area .A is not entirely designated as a greenbelt. He also referred to Page 225 of the document and stated that the comments made relating to the park needs for Corona del Mar were made, back in 1973, and should be so noted as being made ten years ago. -20- n x m � m a March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES R O L L CALL I I I I J i l l ( INDEX Chairman King stated that any corrections to the Draft Environmental impact Report which have been addressed and established to be fact, will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Richard Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols referred to a letter describing the Association's concerns, which is entitled "Dear Resident ", and stated that this letter has been distributed to many of the residents of Corona del Mar. Mr. Nichols referred to Condition No. 6 and recommended that park dedication requirement credit not be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park. He stated that this would. correspond with the recommendations of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission on this site. • Mr. Nichols also referred to Condition No. 7 and recommended the following language, "That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on -site or off -site land dedication, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map." He stated that Grant Howald Park is an active park which desperately needs more land added to it. Chairman King stated that even if the City had sufficient in -lieu funds to purchase the land,, there would not be enough money to develop the park site. Mr. Nichols stated that the land should be obtained at this point. He explained the problems which currently exist because of part ownership by the school board and the City. Chairman King stated that schools have been closing because of lack of enrollment and asked why land should be acquired and money allocated to develop additional active, recreational park sites. Mr. Nichols- stated that Corona del Mar currently has very few active park sites. He stated that recreational park sites which have fields for soccer, football, baseball and softball, are currently filled with approximately 1,000 children on any given Saturday. He stated that with the possible school closures, there will be no park sites for the children to utilize. -21- MINUTES March 10, 1983 � F m m. 3 City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Nichols referred to Condition No. 8 and recommended the following language: "In the event that park dedication is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements, of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel." Mr. Lenard referred to Condition No. 8 and concurred with Mr. Nichols recommendation and suggested that the wording "and improvement" be deleted from the staff's recommendation. He stated that the applicant should be given park dedication credit for the view park, but not for the improvement of the park. Mr. Nichols stated that all of these concerns have been expressed at previous Planning Commission Meetings. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the concerns which have been expressed at previous Planning Commission Meetings have all been addressed and • responded to in the various staff reports or in the attachments entitled, "Responses to Comments" which have been prepared on these items. Mr. Richard Succa, resident of 715 Marguerite Avenue, appeared before the Commission, and stated that there is a need for park areas in Corona del Mar. He stated that it should be the City's responsibility to provide park sites, not the school districts. He stated that the City is in the process of funding a study which will explore the park needs of the City and suggested that action on these items be delayed until the City can receive input from the study. Planning Director Hewicker explained that many of the school sites are designated as Governmental and Institutional Facilities on the General Plan, and would require an amendment to the General Plan in the event a future purchaser of a school site would want to change the uses permitted under that designation. He stated that the City and the school districts have cooperated for many years with respect to providing recreational programs for the residents of the City. Mr. Succa stated that Harbor View School is locked during the summer months which makes it difficult to utilize as a recreational area. He stated that the issue of park sites must be considered separately. -22- m � m a March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Burnham explained the procedures by which a school site use could be changed, as described earlier by Planning Director Hewicker. Ms. Lavena Hayden, resident of 235 Poppy Avenue, appeared before the Commission, and stated that she is appalled at the number of units which are being proposed. She expressed her concerns relating to traffic and parking problems. She stated that the City should not accept in -lieu park fees, because actual park sites are greatly needed in the Corona del Mar area, not in other areas of the City. She stated that this area has grown tremendously and is already heavily congested. Mr. Sohn Dawson, resident of 2152 Vista Dorado, • appeared before the Commission, and stated that he finds no evidence that a study is being performed to determine the park needs for the City. He stated that there is a great need for park sites in the Corona del' Mar area. He.stated that Parcel A should remain.as it is currently designated, that of recreational open space. He recommended that the entire Parcel A be removed from consideration, until such time as the park needs for Corona del Mar are determined and resolved. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that Area A is currently designated for Low - Density Residential on the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Recreational and Environmental Open Space'on the, Open Space Element of the General'Plan. Therefore, he stated that the two Elements are inconsistent and that the proposed amendment will remove this inconsistency. Commissioner Allen asked if the property were to be zoned as Open Space, would the City have to buy the property. Planning Director Hewicker stated that' the City would have to buy the property, if the City deprived the property owner of an economic return on his property. He stated that the property is not currently zoned as Open Space. -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 F-115-2t o w. I City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III III I INDEX Commissioner Allen referred 'to Condition No. 6 and stated that park credit should only be given for those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Maniscalco stated that the amount of flat land outside the easement boundary is approximately three - fourths of an acre. Commissioner Allen stated that she objects to in -lieu park fees, particularly in areas, such as Corona del Mar, where the land values are very high. She stated ' that as time goes by, the City can find money, but can not make more land. She referred to Condition No. 7 and suggested that the provision. for in -lieu fees be taken out as an option. • Commissioner Winburn stated that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission have been studying the in -lieu park fee issue. She stated that she would like to hear the concerns of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission on this issue. Ms. Hayden stated that the park land is greatly needed in Corona del Mar at this time. She stated that The Irvine Company is responsible for increasing the density of the area, and it 'should be their responsibility to supply the impacted residents 'with park sites. Chairman King referred to Condition No. 7 and stated that leaving in the option for in -lieu fees gives the City the flexibility to generate the money needed to improve the park sites once they are established. Mr. Nichols stated that how the lots are located in the proposed development will determine the amount of greenbelts. He stated that the greenbelts should not • be sacrificed to accommodate more residential units. -24- March 10, 1983 n A f` m � m m m . 3 City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Allen referred 'to Condition No. 7 and suggested, that the wording "the assessment of in -lieu fees" be deleted. She stated that the Planning Commission should be concerned with land planning, and that the recommendation for the financing of park sites will come from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. She stated that the recommendations of the two Commissions will go directly to the City Council. The following Straw Votes were taken on AREA A, the MARGUERITE AVENUE PARCEL: Motion Motion was made to approve .Area A, the Marguerite Avenue Parcel, subject to the recommendations of the staff report, with the following revisions: Condition No. 6 shall contain an additional sentence, "Land given • credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the. limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement "; deletion of the .wording "and improvement" on Condition No. 8; deletion of the wording "the assessment of in -lieu fees" on Condition No. 7; Condition No. 10 to be worded, "That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on -site or off -site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards "; and, Condition No. 11 to remain as worded in the staff report. Amendment Commissioner Goff recommended that Condition No. 9 be worded to reflect, "That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills. South residence." Commissioner -Allen accepted this as an amendment to her motion. Chairman King stated that the option for the assessment of in -lieu fees should not be deleted. Commissioner winburn concurred and stated that if the option for in -lieu fees is removed, the City will not_have the funds available to develop active park sites. -25- March.10; 1983 MINUTES m = m m m o. City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Kurlander asked if it is the option of the City or the developer to select either the in -lieu park fees or the land dedication. Planning Director Hewicker stated that it is the City's option to select either the in -lieu park fees or the land dedication when the subdivision map is being considered. Commissioner Kurlander stated that the City should have this option available to them, and therefore, stated that he could not support the motion. Substitute Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Kurlander Motion X to accept the motion made by Commissioner Allen, with Ayes X X X the revision that Condition No. 7 contain the option Noes X X - X. for the assessment of in -lieu fees, which SUBSTITUTE . Absent * MOTION FAILED. Ayes 14 1 1 N 1x i Original Motion made by Commissioner Allen was now N s nt IXIXIXI *. voted on, which MOTION FAILED. � Motion X Motion was made to deny the request for Area A, the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. Commissioner Goff expressed his concern with the legal ramifications which will arise if Area A is denied, when the deliberations begin for Area C, the Buck Gully parcel. Ayes I IXIIII, Motion to deny the request for Area A, the Marguerite Noes X X X X Avenue Parcel, was now voted on, which MOTION FAILED. Absent - - Chairman King'stated that if the proposal were to be approved,' there would be at least two additional.public hearings when the zoning is.applied to the property and when the tract map. is processed. He stated that prematurely removing the in -lieu option at this point, is not acceptable. * * * The Planning Commission recessed at 10 :05 p.m, and reconvened at 10:20 p.m. -26- MINUTES March 10, 1983 n x � c City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that in view of the fact that the Planning Commission's recommendation is advisory to the City Council, he suggested the following solution. He stated that a motion could be made on Area A, with the maker of the motion indicating that there was a failure of the Commission to reach a decision on Condition No. 7, as proposed in the staff report relating as to whether the assessment of in -lieu fees would be retained as an option. He stated that the action could also indicate that the Planning Commission was unable to agree on this issue by a vote of 3 -3, with one Commissioner absent. Commissioner Goff referred to Condition No. 2 and stated that if the recreational designation does not currently exist on the parcel, how can it be removed. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the two Elements • are inconsistent and that the proposed recommendation is to remove this inconsistency. He suggested the following revised wording for Condition No. 2, "Remove Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue to bring the various general plan elements into conformance." Motion X Motion was made to approve AREA A, the MARGUERITE Ayes X X X X X AVENUE.PARCEL, subject to the recommendations of the Noes X staff report, with the following revisions: Condition Absent * No. 2 be worded to reflect, "Remove Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue to bring the various general plan amendments into. conformance. "; Condition No. 6 shall contain an additional sentence, "Land given credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement. "; deletion of the wording "and. improvement" on Condition No. 8; *Condition No. 9 be worded to reflect, "That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence. "; Condition No. 10 to be worded, "That • a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on -site or off -site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using -27- COMMiSSKWRS MINUTES is March 10, 1983 � x City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III III I INDEX 0 0 City standards. "; Condition No. 11 to remain as worded in the staff report; and, Condition No. 7 to be deleted as worded in the staff recommendation, with the language as suggested by the City Attorney to be added to the Commission's action. Motion was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED: Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium- Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue to bring the various general plan elements into conformance. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4.. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 5. A public view park shall be designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element and provided (dedication + improvements) on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of -'the P -C development plan. - 6. That park dedication requirement credits be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park, consistent with the criteria contained in the City's Park Dedication Ordinance., Land given credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County 'Flood Control District Easement. . 7. Deleted by the Planning Commission. (See additional wording as suggested by the City Attorney on the following page). IRM n X c a x Gf ro D � me March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX • 8. In the event that. dedication of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall he used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. 9. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence. 10. That. a number of units equal to at least 108 of the total units be constructed on -site or off -site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 11. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. In the event the dedication of land for a view park does not satisfy the entire requirement of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the Planning Commission was unable to agree (by a vote of 3 -3, one absent) whether the additional requirement could be satisfied through the payment of in -lieu park fees. The Planning Commission's recommendation is forwarded without indication of how additional park dedication requirements will be satisfied. -29- March 10, 1983 � r c m � W ' City of m Area B MINUTES INDEX AREA B Mr. Bernard Maniscalco, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Maniscalco referred to a letter dated March 10, 1983, from Mr. Richard Sim, of The Irvine Company, in which the following language was proposed for Conditions No. 6 and 7: 6. A condition to any subdivision approval for this site will be. that the developer enter into a subdivision agreement with the City to make a number of units equal to 108 of the total units in the subdivision available to low and moderate' income families using City standards, which affordable units may be provided on -site or on other sites in the City. The subdivision agreement shall allow the developer to meet the . affordable housing requirement within 3 years of the date of tentative tract map approval. 7. At the time of future discretionary actions the project may be required to contribute a sum equal to its fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and any other similar mitigation measures, as required by the ordinances and resolutions of the City in force at the time of such actions. Mr. Maniscalco stated that these are the same recommendations on affordable housing and the fair share fund which The Irvine Company had reques_ ted on. Area A. Planning Director Hewicker recommended that the language for Condition No. 6 on Area B, be consistent with the ,language for Area A. He stated that the language would be as follows: "That a number of units equal to at least 108 of the total units be constructed on -site or off -site and be affordable to low and • moderate income families using City standards." Mr. Maniscalco stated that this language would be acceptable for Condition No. 6. -30- � r c > ROLL CALL LJ MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Maniscalco referred to Condition No. 7 and stated that their concerns expressed in Area A, relating to the fair share fund issue, would also apply to Area B. Mr. Maniscalco referred to an aerial photograph depicting the Fifth Avenue Parcel and stated that they are proposing that the parcel be changed from low density residential to medium density residential. He also referred to a specific site design exhibit which he stated was prepared to illustrate a' future development on the site. He stated that they are proposing approximately 85 units and.the dedication to the City of approximately 1.06 acres adjacent to the Oasis facility. He stated that only the flat land will be dedicated and that the sloping land will be maintained by private ownership. He stated that the remaining park requirement for the site will be met with in -lieu fees. He further stated that views across the site will be unobstructed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Chairman King stated that park dedication credit will be given for the dedication of the 1.06 acre parcel adjacent to the Oasis facility. He added that the Oasis facility is an existing park site. Commissioner Goff suggested that the 1.06 acre park dedication be specified in the conditions for Parcel B. Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, suggested that the recommendations of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission be incorporated into the conditions for Parcel B, as follows: 1) That the developer dedicate to the City that land between Marguerite Avenue and the approximate extension of the centerline of Narcissus and north of the existing Oasis Center consisting of ,t 1.06 acres. 2) That when dedicated this land will be improved to the extent that shall have been rough graded to the existing grade of the City owned property to which it is adjacent; that a retaining wall be installed to support the slope above the property; and that the t .40 acres at the existing northeast corner of the parking be graded to the same specification as the dedicated land. -31- INDEX � � c v m 7c n m D ROLL CALL • 2 MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newc)ort Beach 3) That the developer only receive park credit for the actual acreage dedicated and not for the value of any improvements to the land. 4) That any additional park dedication requirement for this site be satisfied by the payment of in -lieu fees. 5) That at the time of the approval of the tentative tract map for the site that the matter again be referred to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for final determination. Mr. Lenard also suggested an additional condition as follows: 6) That no slope areas will be accepted through dedication or be given.additional park credit. Mr. Lenard stated that these conditions are consistent with what the applicant has stated. Mr. Lloyd Crausy, resident of 4015 Topside Lane, and President of Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Crausy again expressed their concerns with the view protection. He referred to Condition No. 5 and stated that reference should be made to Harbor View Hills South, rather than Harbor Views Hills East. He also stated that. a number. be specified in this condition, and recommended that a maximum of 3 feet be utilized. He also expressed their concern with the proposed. layout of the development and the density. He stated that the alleys constitute ten percent of the development and suggested that this land could be better utilized to reduce density or to utilize curvilinear streets. Mr. Richard Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols referred to Condition No. 4 and suggested that the reference to "the assessment of in -lieu fees" be deleted. He stated that the Oasis facility is desirous of expanding the park site to Orchid Avenue, which is slightly more than the actual park requirement for Parcels A and B. -32- INDEX r c m � W 'v m 7C W m > 1 J m d T N 7 March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III I I I -I I INDEX Mr. Nichols stated that the Oasis facility is rapidly growing and greatly needs expansion. He stated that dedication to Orchid Avenue provides adequate growth area. Chairman King stated that increased park dedication translates into increased density for the applicant. Mr. Nichols suggested that the applicant dedicate the 2.06 acres up to the alley which is within the limits of the Park Dedication Ordinance, rather than the 2.5 acres which would be needed to dedicate to Orchid Avenue. He stated that in this way, the applicant would not be entitled to increased density for the project. Mr. Nichols again expressed their concern with the width of Fifth Avenue. He urged that Fifth Avenue be . restricted to 32 feet in width, with parking permitted along the south side of Fifth Avenue. He stated that this will allow for two cars to adequately pass each other and allows the berm from the Oasis facility to be built out. He stated that this will prohibit Fifth Avenue from becoming a lucrative bypass route. Chairman King stated that the width for Fifth Avenue as recommended by the Public Works Department is to include a parking lane with improved curb, gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Donald Webb, City Engineer, concurred and recommended that the City's subdivision Code requirements be followed. Chairman King stated that this is an opportunity to provide sidewalks along Fifth Avenue for public safety. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Lenard stated that if the site were not to be developed with residential units, the park dedication would be deficient by approximately one acre, utilizing the park dedication for both Parcels A and B. He stated that there is nothing to preclude the Commission from designating the site as future park expansion at the General Plan level, and look to other residential • development as a means to acquire the dedication. -33- MiSSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 3 � 'vm 7c G)m > of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I 1 1 1 1 I INDEX • �J Mr. Lenard emphasized that the site plans which have been 'submitted by the applicant, are only to be utilized as a conceptual illustration of the development which could occur on the site. He stated that conditions relating to street width would not be contained at the General Plan Amendment level, but would be contained at the tentative tract map level. Chairman King stated that the public would have the opportunity to respond to such issues at the tentative tract map level. Mr. Nichols reiterated that the Corona del Mar Community Association is strongly opposed to development, unless the 32 foot width for Fifth Avenue is made a condition of the General Plan Amendment. He stated that since sight plane conditions are included at this level, street width conditions can also be included. In response to a question posed by Planning Director Hewicker, Mr. Nichols stated that many of the Board members of the Oasis facility have indicated their desire to expand the facility beyond the 1.06 acre dedication. Dr. Brenda Ross, Chairman for the Long Range Planning' Committee for Oasis, appeared before the Commission. Dr. Ross stated that they are currently in the process of setting up a study to determine their needs for future expansion of the Oasis facility. She stated that the 1.06 acres will allow for future expansion; however, she stated that at this point, it is not known if the 1.06 acres will be sufficient for their needs. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, stated that there is currently a neighborhood park designated for Area B, next to the Oasis facility, and suggested that the in -lieu fees be utilized to purchase the site. Mr. Abe Madigan, address unknown, expressed his concern with the proposed project and its affect upon Buck Gully. -34- 3 � � � c o m T L7 m Y M March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11NDEX Ms. Alice Remer, resident of 210 Goldenrod Avenue, and a founder of the Oasis facility, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Remer stated that the property to Orchid Avenue is needed for the future expansion of the Oasis facility. She stated that the residents of the City are growing older and that by the year 2000, approximately 25 percent of the American population will be over the age of 65. She stated that the City has the .responsibility to respond and take action towards the needs of the older citizens. Mr. Matt Hall, Treasurer of the Friends of Oasis, explained the various activities and classes offered at the Oasis facility and stated that more than 1.06 acres will be needed for their future expansion. He stated that they are currently in the process of defining their future expansion needs. •. Commissioner Winburn suggested that while Oasis is studying their future needs, they should also be considering the surplus school sites which may be utilized for the Oasis expansion. Mr. Hall stated that they will be considering the surplus school sites. Mr. Richard Succa, resident of 715 Marguerite Avenue, stated that he objects to the proposed density increase because the area is already congested with traffic. He stated that he also objects to the use of in -lieu fees, because open space is needed. He stated that in the event the Oasis facility should.expand, additional open space will be needed. Chairman King stated that the proposed project will contain single family residential units, whereas Old Corona del Mar allows double the units. Mr. Succa expressed his concerns that the increased density will generate traffic which the circulation system can not handle. Mr. Succa further stated that the proposed density is not consistent with that of Harbor View Hills. Chairman King stated that higher, density is being proposed, so that the single family residential units can be made more affordable. -35- n x d � m �so�o -m • 0 MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Kennedy stated that according to the Land Use Element, all of the development north of Fifth Avenue is designated as R -1, a part of Harbor View Hills. Therefore, he stated that this area should be developed as Harbor View Hills. He stated that the applicant is requesting the higher density in order to make higher profits. Mr. Walter Ziegler, resident of 327 Poppy- Avenue, expressed his concern with the traffic impact on East Coast Highway the increased density will generate. He further stated that there is a need for additional open space in the area, rather than the assessment of in -lieu fees. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Webb stated that the current City standard is for 20 foot alleys, as opposed to 14 foot alleys which have been utilized in most of Corona del Mar. Mr. Tye Comeras, resident of 932 Sandcastle Drive, stated that Old Corona del Mar, Harbor View Hills and the proposed development can not be compared together. He stated that the proposed development of 86 units will be located on one of the last flat pieces of.land in Corona del Mar. He expressed his concern that there is no space being provided for a functional park and he also expressed his concern with the increased traffic which will be generated by the proposed development. Mr. Owen Ellison, a member of the Friends of Oasis, described the existing property and facilities of the. Oasis center. He stated that he was not aware of the proposed development until two months ago. He stated that he would like to see a compromise by The Irvine Company and the City for the Oasis facility acquiring additional land reserved for the future expansion of Oasis. Chairman King stated that Oasis is a park site owned by the City of Newport Beach. Mr.. Matt Hall stated that the Friends of Oasis are working with the City on a cooperative basis for its future expansion. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission is the overall supervisor of the Oasis facility. -36- INDEX � x Cr n 5 x a) m a C 6 0 — d MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Richard Russell, resident of 888 Sandcastle Drive, expressed his concern with the quality of the proposed development and the views of the ocean and bay which may be affected. He referred to Condition No. 5 and suggested the following wording, "That the existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved 5 feet below the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence." He stated that his view will be impacted because his residence will now overlook the proposed density of rooftops, alleys, and garages or carports. Mr. Russell further expressed his concern with the movement of earth or slippage during the construction of the proposed development which may affect his property.. Chairman King stated that in past projects, the City has required bonding during the construction phase of projects to provide protection and address such items. • Mr. William Cullen, resident of 950 Sandcastle Drive, expressed his concern that actual park land is needed for the expansion of the Oasis facility, rather than the assessment of in -lieu fees. He also stated that the proposed development would be inconsistent with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Allen Tice, resident of 912 Sandcastle Drive, expressed his concern with views which will be affected and stated that the views must be protected. Commissioner McLaughlin expressed her concern with the proposed increase to medium density residential and the traffic which will be generated. Mr. Webb, City Engineer, stated that approximately 91 units are being added by the General Plan Amendment, which amounts to approximately 800 to 900 more trips to the area. He stated that this would probably not require the widening of any streets. However, he stated that the conditions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance will have to be met at tentative tract map level. In response to a question posed by Commissioner • McLaughlin, Mr. Webb stated that it is possible that the additional traffic will be absorbed by the existing circulation system. -37- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 e ` m v m o A n m D m m T w. City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III III INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Webb stated that assuming a peak hour would be 10 percent of the total, there would be approximately 80 additional cars per hour, or over 1§ additional cars per minute. The following Straw Votes were taken on AREA B, the FIFTH AVENUE PARCEL: Commissioner McLaughlin stated that in view of the increased traffic which will be generated by the proposed development and the need for Oasis to study its future expansion plans, she made the following motion: Motion 21 Motion was made to deny the request for Area B, the Fifth Avenue Parcel. •stitute Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Goff for Motion X approval of Area B, the Fifth Avenue Parcel, subject to the recommendations of the staff report, with the following revisions: An additional condition to allow for the area between the Oasis facility and the extension of Orchid Avenue to be designated as Open Space to allow acquisition for park dedication for the future expansion of the Oasis facility; an additional condition that the area north of the Oasis facility to be included in the Open Space. designation for park space with park dedication credit; and, the revisions to Condition No. 6 as suggested by staff. Commissioner Goff stated that he would hope that drastic improvements would be made to the development at the tentative tract map level, as compared to the conceptual plan which has been presented by the applicant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, .Mr. Lenard stated that 1.60 acres would be. the park dedication requirement for this site, if no . in -lieu fees were taken. M MINUTES March 10, 1983 ro m m m q. City of Newport Beach INDEX In response to a question posed by Planning Director Hewicker, Commissioner Goff stated that his motion states that the area ,between the existing Oasis facility and extension of Orchid Avenue, north of the project boundary and east of Marguerite Avenue, would be designated as Open Space to include the 1.06 acre park site, as opposed to the current designation of low density residential. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Chairman King stated that the area referred to by Commissioner Goff consists of approximately 1' to 2 acres. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if this area is designated as Open Space, it can be acquired as dedication from existing and nearby developments,' or in -lieu fees can be utilized to purchase the additional land. Chairman King expressed his concern with the possible future development of a daycare center on the Oasis property and the traffic generation which it may produce, as opposed to the proposed development of single family residential units. Commissioner Goff stated that at this point he does not necessarily advocate the expansion of the Oasis facility. However, he stated that the City should have the flexibility of long range planning for this area. Chairman King suggested that the study for the Oasis facility expansion consider the advantages of utilizing satellite sites around the City. Commissioner McLaughlin expressed her concern that the existing circulation system can not handle the additional traffic which will be generated by the proposed density increase. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn,,Mr. Burnham stated that the two developments can be linked together by adding a condition that one of the parcels will not be developed without the completion of the traffic study on the other parcel. He' stated that the tentative tract maps for the two parcels could be required to be submitted concurrently for consideration. -39- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 m � m > City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI 11 1 111 INDEX Commissioner Allen referred to Condition No. 5 and suggested that the line -of -sight be specified at three feet. Chairman King stated that in order to be consistent with past actions, a' line -of -sight at four feet should be considered. Commissioner Goff stated that he would accept an amendment to his Substitute Motion for a line -of -sight at four feet. No IXIXXIXI *I J* Substitute Motion by Commissioner Goff, as amended, was now voted on, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED. Absent' A Y es X X Original Motion made by Commissioner McLaughlin to deny Noes X X the request for AREA B, the FIFTH AVENUE PARCEL,'was'- Absent * now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. I I I I I I I At 11:45 p.m., the Planning Commission decided to hear the remainder of the Agenda, after acting upon the General .Plan Amendment request. Area C AREA C Mr. Bernard Maniscalco,. representing. The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Maniscalco referred to a letter dated March 10, 1983, from Mr. Richard Sim, of The Irvine Company, which requested that Area C be deleted from further consideration in the General Plan Amendment, However, Mr. Maniscalco stated that if the Planning Commission determines that action on Area C is appropriate at this time, he requested the following revisions and additions to the staff recommendations. Mr. Maniscalco requested that the following revision'be adopted to Condition No. 3: 3. That the parcel be re -zoned to the Open Space Zone for passive open space use concurrent and - -i-n eonsideration--ef with the re- zoning of the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels. -40- K a MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Maniscalco requested that Condition No. 4 be added as follows: 4. That the property owner shall be eligible to receive a credit against Quimby Act requirements for the value of those portions of Buck Gully which are made available to the public for active recreational uses allowable under the Local Coastal Program and the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, referred to Condition No. 3 and recommended the following language: 3. That the parcel be re -zoned to the Open Space Zone for passive open space use concurrent and in consideration of the increased densities permitted by General Plan Amendment 81 -2 on the Marguerite . Avenue parcel. Mr. Maniscalco requested that the word, "passive" be deleted. Chairman King stated that there is not a formalized definition for a passive use. However, he stated that a passive use does not require a.team action or a sport that involves many people, but rather a paseo use such as a nature walk or jogging trail. He stated that the reference to passive, essentially indicates .a public use of some form. He stated that the word "passive" determines the degree of activity which will take place. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the word, "passive" is to be deleted from Condition No. 3, that. the word, "active" should be deleted from the proposed additional Condition No. 4.' Mr. Burnham stated that the use of the word, "passive" makes the applicant ineligible for Quimby Act credits. He suggested a compromise that the word, "passive" be deleted and the question of park credits can be determined at the tentative tract map level. He further stated that the terms "passive" and "active" are distinctions which apply directly to the Quimby Act. -41- MINUTES March 10, 1983 m � m m y. City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Maniscalco referred to an aerial photograph which depicted the boundaries of Buck Gully. Planning Director Hewicker stated that an increase of 31 dwelling units has been recommended for Parcel A, and Parcel B has been denied. He stated that had Parcel B also been approved, there would have been a total increase of 91 dwelling units for the two parcels. Mr. Lenard stated the Buck Gully parcel consists of approximately 65 gross acres. However, he stated that in considering the slope areas greater than 2:1 and making an. allowance for streets within the area, there are approximately 50 buildable acres remaining. ' He' stated that under the alternate low density residential designation, this would allow approximately 200 units. He further pointed out that the City's Location of Structures policy and the fact that Buck Gully is a • meandering canyon,. would make it very difficult to design a subdivision with 200 units. Mr. Richard Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols stated that since the City can not.afford to develop the requested small park sites which have been discussed previously, he questioned how the City could afford to maintain the 65 acres in Buck Gully. He urged that the recommendation of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission be adopted which states that the low density residential designation be removed from the site as proposed by General Plan Amendment 81 -2. Further, the City should not accept dedication of the property and that no park credits should be given pursuant to the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, expressed his concern that many of the homes already built. in Buck Gully were constructed on manufactured slopes. He stated that the 31 additional units allowed on Parcel A represents a good quid pro quo. He also stated that reference should be made towards a passive park area, otherwise a tennis court or a commercial use • of the area may be intended. He also stated that the requirements of the Coastal Plan should be considered for Buck Gully. -42- March, 10, 1983 MINUTES n x � r c w. City of Newport Beach INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Kennedy stated that the quid pro quo of 31 additional units on Parcel A should be traded for Buck Gully as a passive park use. Planning Director Hewicker explained the existing zoning designation for Buck Gully. Be stated that the staff is recommending that the alternate residential land use designation be removed. He stated that in consideration of the City removing the alternate residential designation, credit is being given for 31 additional units on Parcel A. He stated that this would leave the primary designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space /Flora and Fauna Reserve on Parcel C. Mr. Richard Succa, resident of 715 Marguerite Avenue, • stated that since no residential units are being proposed at this time, he recommended that no action taken be taken on the Buck Gully parcel. He stated that until development plans are proposed for this parcel, no action should be taken. He stated that credit for 31 additional units should not be given for Parcel A, if no action is taken on Parcel C. In response to a question posed by Mr. Succa, Commissioner Goff stated that having allowed an increase of density on Parcel A, compensates the applicant for the loss of residential revenue on Parcel C. Commissioner Goff, added that Area A was not conditioned upon the redesignation of Area C. Mr. Maniscalco clarified that there would be 45 units on Parcel A, or an increase of only 23 units. He stated that had Parcel B been approved, there would have been an additional 45 units, for a total of 85 units. Ms'. Lavena Hayden, resident of 235 Poppy Avenue, stated that the City's park fund should not utilized to acquire and maintain Buck Gully. -43- x a ro x G m a March 10, 1983 of Newmt Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l ( INDEX The following Straw Votes were taken on AREA C, the BUCK GULLY PARCEL: Commissioner Allen recommended that after weighing all of the factors and receiving the testimony on Area C, no changes should be made to the General Plan for this site. Motion X Motion was made that no changes be made to the General Plan for Area C, the Buck Gully Parcel. Substitute Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner McLaughlin Motion X for approval of Area C, the Buck Gully Parcel, subject to the recommendations of the staff report, with the following revisions: Condition No. 3 to be worded, "That the parcel be re -zoned to the Open Space Zone for open space use concurrent and in consideration of the • increased densities permitted by General Plan Amendment 81 -2 on the Marguerite Avenue parcel, and, approval does not include the additional Condition No. 4 as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Allen stated that The Irvine Company has requested that Area C be deleted from consideration in this General Plan Amendment and the public testimony has indicated that there is no desire to amend this parcel. She stated that her motion that no changes be made to the General Plan for this site, does not preclude The Irvine Company from dedicating a, portion of Buck Gully as park dedication, at a future date. Commissioner Goff stated that in view of the approval of Area A and denial of Area B, he asked Mr.* Burnham's opinion as to the City's legal position in terms of being required to acquire Buck Gully. Mr. Burnham stated that the City would not be required to acquire Buck Gully. He stated that if the' Open Space designation were to be challenged by The Irvine Company, based upon the additional densities which are., to be permitted, there is not' a quid pro quo. Mr. Burnham referred to his previous memo on this item • which explained the issue of granting compensating densities. -44- n x � r c v m x c) v March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX In response to questions posed by Chairman King and Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Burnham stated that if no changes were to be made to the parcel, and if another General Plan Amendment were to be filed for Parcel B. the differential for this site could then be negotiated. Ayes X X Noes z X X. X Substitute Motion by Commissioner McLaughlin was now Absent * voted on, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED. Ayes X X X X X X Original. Motion made by Commissioner Allen that no Absent * changes be made to the General Plan for AREA C, the BUCK GULLY PARCEL, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. BIG CANYON AREA 16 Mr. Bernard. Maniscalco, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Maniscalco referred to a letter dated March 10, 1983, from Mr. Richard Sim, of The Irvine Company, in which language was proposed for Conditions No. 4 and 5. Mr. Maniscalco stated that they concur with the revision to the language of the affordable housing condition for Area A, the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. Therefore, he stated that Condition No. 4 for Big Canyon Area 16 would now read: 4. That a number of units equal to at least 108 of the total units be constructed on -site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. Mr. Maniscalco referred to Condition No. 5, relating to the fair share fund, and stated that their concerns expressed in Area A, the Marguerite Avenue Parcel, would also apply to Big Canyon Area 16. He then proposed the following language: -45- BIG CANYON AREA 16 March 10, 1983 � r c ro m _m m N. City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project may be required to contribute a sum equal to its fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and any other similar mitigation measures, as required by the ordinances and resolutions of the City in force at the time of such action. Mr. Maniscalco further recommended that Condition No. 6, relating to the Mouth of Big Canyon, be deleted. He stated that the requirement for resolving park credits and development rights should not be conditioned upon the development of Big Canyon Area 16,. Mr. Maniscalco referred to an exhibit which depicted the area in question and stated that they are requesting that a medium density residential use shall • be permitted on the site. He stated that there are approximately 8.7 buildable acres, which will allow for 10 dwelling units per acre, or approximately 87 units. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, asked if the 87 units are floating units which are already existing in the Big Canyon Planned Community. Mr. Maniscalco stated that there are up to 100 floating units available to be allocated to the site, therefore, he stated that the 87 proposed units are already existing in the Big Canyon Planned Community. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, expressed his concern that the park study funds were deleted from the General Plan Amendment. The following Straw Vote was taken on BIG CANYON AREA 16: Motion X Motion was made for approval of BIG CANYON AREA 16, subject to the recommendation of the staff report, with the revision that Condition No. 6 be worded, "That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total • units be constructed on -site or off -site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards." -46- MINUTES March 10, 1983 3 F m m w. City of Newport Beach Ayes IX XI XI IX -I Motion voted oapproval which MOTION CARRIED: 16 as stated, Absent Big Canyon - Area 16 Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium- Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove the Recreation and Open Space /Golf Course designation. 3. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on -site or off -site land dedication, the assessment of • in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. C 4. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on -site or off -site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. 6. Prior to the approval by the City of any future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tract) , the question of park credits, development rights and ownership of the Mouth of Big Canyon shall be resolved. -47- INDEX ROLL Motion Ayes Absent r1 LJ MINUTES March 10, 1983 � 5 m m m City of Newport Beach - m NEWPORT CENTER - BLACK 400 Mr. Frank Rhodes, resident of 1417 E'. Bay Front, and representing Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc., appeared before the Commission. Mr. Rhodes states that they concur with the staff recommendations for'Newport Center - Block 400. Commissioner Allen stated that it was her understanding that prior to General Plan Amendment 78 -2, the allowable development on the site was for 60,000 square feet, as opposed to 80,000 square feet. Mr. Rhodes stated that the City Attorney has reviewed the original lease on the site which provided for 160,000 square feet of floor area in two buildings. He stated that the first building had a minimum square footage requirement of 60,000 square feet, which may be where Commissioner Allen recalls the 60,000 square feet figure. The following Straw Vote was taken on NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400: KJxJxJx X I *I 400, subject MOTIONheARrecommend�� follows: of�the staff Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400, on the parcel located at 400 Newport Center Drive East. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. Specify the development be subject to further review and approval of a use permit SM INDEX NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 10ion Ayes Noes Absent 3 � r c m - W Pro T. G) y MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach [©C 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE Mr._ Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, recommended that Condition No. 3 be deleted. He.stated that the traffic lid of 0.5 would be sufficient to control the uses in the area. The following Straw Vote was taken on CAMPUS DRIVE: X Motion was made for approval of CAMPUS DRIVE, subject X X X K X to the recommendations of the staff report, with the X deletion of Condition No. 3, which MOTION CARRIED, as a follows: Campus Drive_ Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Revise the land use designation for the area hounded by Dove Street, Birch Street, Bristol Street and Campus Drive to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2. Establish a permitted intensity of development for the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of the draft EIR).of 0.5 floor area ratio, with a floor area ratio of up to 1.0 permitted upon review and approval of a use permit. This increase in permitted floor area may be approved if a finding can be made that the traffic and circulation system impacts are no greater than those generated by an office development at 0.5 FAR. The floor. area ratio limits are defined as the ratio of gross_ structural area to the buildable area of the site. -49- � c R m 3 7C iil 9 D J 3 m m= N 3 1c I 3. 4 MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Deleted by the Planning Commission. Direct that the zoning in the area be amended to implement this General Plan Amendment. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions, individual projects shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. The Planning Commission then took the following actions on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81 -2 and AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: ion X Motion was made to adopt Resolution ,No. 1088, Ayes X X X X recommending to the City Council that the proposed Absent * amendments, as evidenced in the approved Straw Votes, to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan be adopted, and in recommending approval of said amendment that the Environmental Impact Report prepared in conjunction with the project be certified as adequate and complete (General Plan Amendment 81 -2), which MOTION CARRIED. Motion X Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1089, Ayes X X X recommending to the City Council approval of an Absent JJ*JJ amendment to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for the CalTrans West Site, which MOTION CARRIED. * : x -50- INDEX ROW MINUTES. March 10, 1983 � r � m � m City of Newport Beach m Request to permit the construction of an accessory 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 yard setback and to allow the subject accessory garage structure to be located on the front one -half of an R -3 parcel. The accessory structure will be constructed on the site in conjunction with the construction of a single family dwelling that conforms with the permitted height limits. I I I I I I I I LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 36 -3 (Resubdivision No. 274) located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of Ocean Boulevard at the south- westerly terminus of Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Edward Giddings, AIA, Newport Beach OWNER: Carl Quandt, San Jacinto The public hearing in connection with this item and Mr. Edward Giddings, architect for the project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Giddings stated that their plans have been revised in. accordance. with the City's requirement of grading standards for driveways. He stated that the height of the garage has been lowered to a maximum height of three feet above the top of curb of Ocean Boulevard at the front of the parcel and two feet four inches at the rear of the parcel. He stated that they have also received basic approval from the Corona del Mar Community Association for the revised changes. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Giddings referred to an exhibit which depicted the height variations of the previous plans versus the proposed development. -51- INDEX Team #i VARIANCE NO. 1095 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY COMANSSIOI`%fRS March 10, 1983 ROLL CALL � r c _. m - W m m City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Coastal Commission has written a letter regarding this project, which has.yet to be received. He stated that it is his understanding that the proposed garage structure is acceptable to the Coastal Commission staff. However, he stated that the Coastal Commission may have some concerns with the location and the amount of grading which would be required for the single family dwelling which is located lower on the site, which is not a part of this variance. He stated that the Coastal Commission has also indicated that they do not feel that the view which is obtained from this particular property, across the driveway, is of particular significance, when compared to other views from Ocean Boulevard. Therefore, the Coastal-Commission staff did not share the same concerns as staff had expressed relating to view preservation in this area. • Planning Director Hewicker stated that input has been received from Mr. Nichols of the Corona del Mar Community Association relating to this project. He stated that the location of the garage and the grading of the driveway in the revised plan, is a result of meetings with the applicant, Mr. Nichols and members of the City staff. Planning Director Hewicker stated that staff has. no objections to the five percent slope of the garage roof line, which provides the necessary clearance inside the garage. He further stated that the location of the garage in the revised plan, has been moved further from the street by approximately 12 feet. He stated that by doing so, the location of the structure is pushed further out of the view plane, which allows for the grading on the driveway. Mr. Richard Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols stated that if the drainage and water flow of the street were to be corrected by the City, development at or below the curb line could be achieved by the proposed project. However, he stated that the . City is not willing to do this. -52- r m � m 3 A MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Nichols stated that because the City previously approved this substandard lot, a variance is now needed in order for the applicant to build upon his property. He stated that the applicant has revised the plan to, the best of his ability. Mr. Nichols stated that the penalty of the variance will be carried by the adjacent homeowners, located across the street. Commissioner Goff asked if any views will be impaired by the revised plan. Mr. Nichols stated that there will be view impairment suffered by the homeowners which are located across the street. He referred to an exhibit and explained the sight plane which will be affected by the revised plan. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, expressed his concern that if the City grants the • variance, is the City responsible for the views which will be lost as a result of the variance. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that the City would not be responsible for damages because of the loss of a view. u Mr. Kent Moore, owner of property located at 2500 and 2502 Ocean Boulevard, and representing approximately 50 adjacent homeowners, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Moore explained the history of the parcel in question. He stated that since the City approved the resubdivision of the property, it is the responsibility of the City to resolve the issue of the - curb modification. He requested that no building permits be issued for the construction of the garage until the property is rezoned to the R -1 designation. Mr. Carl Quandt, owner of the property, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Quandt stated that the garage structure is only 12 feet in width. He stated that the area between the proposed garage and the adjacent property is approximately 35 feet which views directly upon the water. -53- INDEX COM/WSSONFRSI MINUTES March 10, 1983 n x � r c > ROLL CALL of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Donald Webb, City Engineer, explained the drainage flow conditions which exist in the area. He stated that this particular area is located in what is considered a sump condition which accepts water flow from neighboring streets. Therefore, he stated that the City's recommendation for the grading of the driveway is necessary, in order to prevent water from flowing down the slope. He also stated that the proposed configuration of the driveway is recommended for safety purposes. He stated that the architect has redesigned the project to meet these concerns. Commissioner Allen suggested that perhaps the variance could be conditioned to reflect that nothing more than a single family dwelling could be built upon the site, in consideration of granting the variance. Commissioner Allen asked if any views from inside of an • adjacent residence or balcony will be blocked by the revised garage design. Mr. Moore stated that the revised .garage design will partially block views from all of the residences located on 2500 and 2600 Ocean Boulevard. Commissioner Allen stated that the living space of the residences on Ocean Boulevard are located high up on the lots and it would seem that the water views would' not be blocked by the revised garage design. Mr. Moore stated that the lower levels of the residences would have their views partially obstructed by the proposed garage. Commissioner Allen compared the differences in having no garage located on the site, as opposed to having an automobile parked on the street. She stated that an automobile which is parked on the street would be approximately three feet in height, which is 'the same as the proposed garage. Mr. Moore stated that an automobile parked on the street would affect the views of the first three residences located on the 2500 block of Ocean Boulevard. He stated that an automobile parked on the street would be a better alternative. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the garage is . not constructed, an automobile could still park on the apron of the driveway, which would block the views more than the garage itself would block. -54- March 10, 1983 3 F � � c City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Chairman Icing stated that the revised garage design constitutes a reasonable compromise of what could be built upon the site'. Mr. Quandt stated that there is not a drainage problem in the area because of the catch basin. He referred to his earlier comments and reiterated that the proposed garage is only 12 feet in width, which leaves approximately 35 feet of area which views directly upon the water. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that the concerns she has received from the residents of the area are regarding the precedent setting nature of the proposed variance. Mr. Burnham stated that the granting of a variance itself concerns the unique circumstances in each case. Therefore, he stated that precedent setting affects would not apply to the granting of this variance. Motion I JxJ I I I I I Motion was made for approval of Variance No. 1095, subject to the revised findings and conditions of approval with the corrected roof line. Commissioner Allen stated that the City should have never approved the lot split for the subject property. She stated that this created an unbuildable lot. She also stated that she could not support a motion which would allow the construction of the garage structure. Colmnissioner McLaughlin stated- that a- garage is not only utilized for the parking of an automobile, but also provides a certain amount of storage, and space for washer, dryers and workbenches. Commissioner Allen stated that more storage space can be provided in the single family house. Ayes X x x X x Motion by Commissioner McLaughlin for approval of Noes X Variance No. 1095, subject to the revised findings and Absent * conditions of approval with the corrected roof line, •was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: -55- � c m � m c n z ) m D March 10, 1983 Of Beach MINUTES INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances ,applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses in the same district inasmuch as the existing topography of the site would necessitate the construction of a longer driveway and garage lower on the site. Said garage would not be as accessible as one located higher on the site. 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the .preservation and enjoyment of substantial' property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the Coastal Commission has indicated they will not approve a garage in another location. • 3. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. The Coastal Commission has indicated that the destruction of public views are a preferable development alternative to the alteration of Coastal Bluffs. 4. That the establishment, maintenance -or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification for the walkway railing and the detached garage on the front one -half of the lot are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. • -56- COM/WSSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 � r c City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved revised plot plan, floor plans, sections and elevation. 2. That the garage structure be maintained -free and clear for the parking of a vehicle at all times. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public works Department. 4. That the existing catch basin on Ocean Boulevard be relocated to clear the proposed drive apron and that the location be approved by the Public Works • Department. 5. That the proposed back of the driveway apron have a minimum rise of 12 inches above flow line elevation unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. • 6. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired. to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. -57- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 m > F-11-11 0 City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III III I INDEX Request to establish a two -unit residential condominium Item #4 project on property located in the R -2 District. FIRTRE USE PERMIT NO. 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 #5 Heights. ZONE: R -2 RESUB- APPLICANT: Michael Fricke, Newport Beach DIVISION No. 741 • OWNER: Same as applicant - ENGINEER: Same as applicant Agenda Items No. 4 and 5 were heard concurrently due to - BOTH their relationship. APPROVED CONDI- The public hearing opened in connection with these TIONALLY items and Mr. Michael Fricke, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Fricke referred to Condition No. 2, Part A, and requested that the wall insulation be deleted and the ceiling insulation be increased to R -27. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the project would have to meet the requirements of the Building Code and that these issues would have to be resolved with the Building Department. Chairman King stated that Condition No. 2 could be modified to read that the insulation provided, shall be satisfactory to the Building Department. Planning Director Hewicker suggested that the following wording • could be added to Condition No. 2, "unless modified by the Building Department Official." Mm COMMISSIONERS March 10, 1983 n x � r c City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX Mr. Fricke referred to the 'petition attached to the staff report and stated that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He explained the parking which the proposal will be providing, which conforms with the development standards. Mr. Robert Trapp, resident of 336 Catalina Drive, appeared before the Commission, and stated that he is in support of the proposed project. Motion JX Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3021, Ayes X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, with Noes the revision to Condition No. 2, as suggested by staff,* Absent which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: • I I I I I I I 1. As approved, each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with . separate and individual utility connections. 2. That the granting of modification to certain Building Code requirements for the existing single family dwelling located at 328 Catalina Drive, will in no way be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements than will the strict compliance with said standards. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace_, 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. -59- r m � m ROLL • • March 10, 1983 Of CONDITIONS: MINUTES 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the following corrections to the existing single family dwelling located at 328 Catalina Drive shall be completed prior to the recordation of a parcel map for condominium purposes, unless modified by the Building Department Official: a. Installation of R -11 and R -19 insulation in walls and ceilings respectively. b. Repipe entire house with.new water pipe. c. Separate all utilities (sewer, water, electrical and gas) from the new structure at the rear of the lot. d. Reroof the existing structure with Class C fire- retardant roofing. e. Remove all gas piping from under the slab and repipe outside or overhead on the existing structure. f. Install ground fault interrupters in the bathrooms and all exterior location on the first floor. 3. That all other adopted City and State Building Codes not mentioned in Condition of approval of 2 are waived, as they pertain to the existing single family residence on the subject property. 4. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 741 shall be fulfilled. 5. That two garage spaces for the structure located at 317 La Jolla Drive and one garage space for the dwelling unit located at 328 Catalina Drive shall be maintained for vehicular storage at all times. rM INDEX Motion Ayes Noes Absent r1 U • 3 � � r c a xix t March 10, 1983 City of Beach MINUTES Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 741, subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: - FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with individual water services and sewer. laterals unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That arrangements be made with the Public Works. Department to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit or record the parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That a standard drive apron be constructed along the La Jolla Drive frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department, and that the back of drive apron be at least 2 inches above the top of curb. -61- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 � r c m City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III III INDEX 6. That any non - standard improvements to be constructed within the public right -of -way comply with the license agreement executed by the City in October 1981 and recorded in Book 14272 Pg. 1005 of the Orange County Recorder's office on October 28, 1981. 7. That a 3 foot (minimum) wide sidewalk be constructed across the frontage of the parcel on Catalina Drive. B. That the pavement failure on La Jolla Drive in front of the parcel be repaired to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Item #6 • Request to construct an accessory gazebo structure PLANNING within the front one -half of the lot located in the COMMISSION R -1 -B District. REVIEW LOCATION: Lot 74, Tract No. 6152, located at 1429 Keel Drive, on the westerly side of Keel Drive between Inlet Drive and Heron Way in Harbor View Hills. ZONE: R -1 -B (APPROVED CONDI- APPLICANTS: Mr. and Mrs. Dave Lancer, Newport Beach TIONALLY OWNERS: Same as applicants Planning Director Hewicker stated that this item was continued from the last Planning Commission Meeting, so that the Harbor View Hills Homeowners' Association could review the proposed request. He stated that apparently, the Association has not had the opportunity to review the proposed request, which is not the fault of the applicant. He suggested that the Planning Commission could approve this item, with the additional • condition that the applicant obtain the approval of the .Harbor View Hills Homeowners' Association. -62- F v m 7C L] > MINUTES March 10; 1983 of Newport Beach Chairman King stated that the Harbor View Hills Homeowners' Association wants to formally review and Act upon the proposed request. Motion I J IXI I JXJ Motion was made for approval of the proposed request, All Ayes X X X * subject to the following findings and conditions, with the additional condition as suggested by staff, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. • 3. The location of the proposed accessory structure will not be detrimental to adjoining property. 4. The Planning. Commission has approved the elevation and location of the accessory building. 5. The proposed development will not obstruct views from adjacent residential property. r 1 LJ 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans and elevations. 2. That a building permit shall be issued for all new construction. 3. That the applicant shall obtain the approval_of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners' Association. -63- INDEX • Motion All Ayes. I� U F _ m = m 5 o 6 x c> m a March 10, 1983 of Newport . Beach MINUTES INDEX Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land into (Item #7 two parcels for office purposes. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 57 -12 (Resubdivision No. 386), located at 4101 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of Newport Place RESUB- Drive and MacArthur Boulevard, in the DIVISION Newport.Place Planned Community: - NO. 742 ZONE: P -C - APPLICANT: The Ketchum Company - OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. John Richards, representing the engineer, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of the resubdivision. Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 742, X X * X subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access. through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Iffm APPROVED TIONALLY 3 x � r c Jc m X c) ��-, s March 10, 1983 oo�l - CONDITIONS: Beach 1. That a parcel map be recorded. MINUTES 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the on -site parking circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 4. That there be a document recorded satisfactory to the City Attorney and the .Planning Director, providing for an easement for ingress, egress, and parking over Parcel No. l for the benefit of Parcel No. 2. INDEX •- Request to establish one building site and eliminate Item #8 interior property lines where three lots presently exist. LOCATION: Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 225, Section "A ", Lancaster's Addition, located at 2822 Newport Boulevard, on the easterly RESUB- side of Newport Boulevard, between 28th DIVISION Street and 29th Street, in Cannery NO. 743 Village. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: James J. Locke, Jr., Corona del Mar APPROVED CONDI- OWNER: Chien S. Wang, Balboa - TIONALLY ENGINEER: Same as applicant Chairman King noted that the. applicant was present earlier, but due to the lateness of the hour, was not present at this time. There being no one present wishing to discuss the item, the following motion was • made: -65- C0MMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 X r c w � m m m q. City of Newport Beach ALL77471 I I I INDEX Motion I xJxJXJX [ 1 I Motion was made for approval'of Resubdivision No. 743, All Ayes X * subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or 'specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the 'proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed • subdivision. • CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That all conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3004 shall be fulfilled. 4. That the agreement and accompanying surety to', guarantee completion of public improvements, as required in Use Permit No. 3004, be completed prior to recordation of the parcel map or issuance of building permits. * * * r COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 � c m 07 - n o q. City of Newport Beach ROLLCALI-1111 111 INDEX Request to establish an automobile rental service and storage facility on property located in the M -1 -A District. LOCATION: Lots 14 and 15, Tract No. 3201, located at 4000 Campus Drive, on the southeasterly side of Campus Drive, USE PERMIT between Quail Street and Dove Street, _NO. 3023 across from the John Wayne Airport. FINDINGS: - 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the proposed . development is similar to other. automobile rental agencies that have been approved by the Planning Commission adjacent to the John Wayne Airport. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that it does . not contemplate any problems. -67- ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Hertz Corporation, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport - Beach.- - - - - - APPR OVED CONDI- TIONALLY The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Steven Strauss, of Pacesetter Homes, representing the applicant, appeared before the • Commission and requested approval of the use permit. He stated that representatives of the Hertz Corporation are present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Motion Motion was made for approval of Use Permit. No. .3023, All Ayes x x x * X subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: - - FINDINGS: - 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the proposed . development is similar to other. automobile rental agencies that have been approved by the Planning Commission adjacent to the John Wayne Airport. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that it does . not contemplate any problems. -67- ROLL CALL � r c m � m Q m 7f m D March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES 4. The' approval of Use Permit No. 3023 will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and 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, except as may be noted below. I I I I I I I I 2 That all employees' vehicles and all rental vehicles shall be parked on the subject property at all times. • I 1 I I I I I 3. That there shall be no major repairs of vehicles I permitted on -site unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. • 4. That the deteriorated P.C.C. gutter along the southerly drive apron be reconstructed and that the deteriorated portion of the parking lot drain joining the southerly drive apron be reconstructed. 5. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department and that all work be completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 6. That waste water from the car -wash facility be directed into the sewer system and not into the storm drain system. 7. That the car -wash facility shall be. roofed. and otherwise .designed to prevent rain water from entering the sewer system. ! M INDEX � r c m = m 'c m m > March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES ll2 91 Request to permit the establishment of a take -out ice Item #10 cream shop with take -out window in the C -O -H District, and to waive all of the required off - street parking spaces in conjunction with said use. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 4, Tract No. 1117, located at 3378 Via Oporto, on the USE easterly side of Via Oporto between Via NO. Lido and Via Malaga in Central Newport. ZONE: C -O -H APPLICANT: Newport Circle International, Newport Beach APPROVED OWNER: Alan Fainbarg, Tustin CONDI- TIONALLY The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. James Laughlin, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of the use permit. Commissioner Allen referred to Condition of Approval No. 7, which relates to the maitenance of the premises and sidewalk, and stressed that the premises and sidewalk are to be cleaned and maintained on a regular basis. Motion IIIXI Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3024, All Ayes X X X X ]XI subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the .General Plan and the adopted Local Costal Program Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. • -69- 3 F � c v m 3 7C G1 m D March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES I R O L L CALL I I I I III I I INDEX 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to parking, circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination and utilities, will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the site has been developed and the structures have been in existence for many years. 4. That the proposed use does not represent an intensification of use that will result in an increased parking demand for the area. 5. The Police Department' has indicated that they do_ not contemplate any problems. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3024 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. CONDTTTONS 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations. 2. That the development standards related to all of the required offstreet parking spaces, circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination and utility requirements are waived. 3. That all exterior signs shall conform to Chapter . 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. That a trash compactor shall be installed in conjunction with the proposed use. 5. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjacent properties and from Via Oporto. I I I I I I I I COMM1SSdONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 � F v m 7c G1 m > City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That no cooking, or any food preparation' other than ice- cream, related products, or other approved items, shall be permitted in the take -out restaurant facility unless an amended use permit is approved by the City at a later date. Said amendment could require the addition of kitchen exhaust fans, washout areas for trash containers, and grease interceptors. 7. That the premises and the sidewalk on Via Oporto shall be kept clear and regularly maintained. 8. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be provided in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 9. That this approval shall be for a period of two years, and any extension shall be subject to approval of the Modifications Committee. Request to permit the installation of outdoor lighting Item #11 on 20 foot high standards in conjunction with an existing tennis court on property located in the R -1 -B District'. ' LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel. Map 129 -4 - USE PERMIT (Resubdivision No. 559) located at 930 NO. 3025 Mariners Drive, on the westerly side of Mariners Drive, easterly. of Galaxy_ Drive, in Dover Shores. ZONE: R -1 -B' - APPROVED CONDI- APPLICANT: Pilar Wayne, Newport Beach TIONALLY OWNER: Same as applicant - Commissioner Allen referred to Condition No. 2 and asked if the proposed light fixtures are similar to previous lighting systems which have been approved on • other applications. -71- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 � r c _ m = m q City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLIIII III I INDEX Planning Director Hewicker stated that the proposed light fixtures may not be identical to previously approved lighting systems. However, he stated that the language in Condition No. 2 indicating the requirements of the lighting system is the same. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Ray Handy, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of the use permit. Planning Director Hewicker stated that letters of support, for the proposal had been received from Mr. Ronald Coelyn, Mrs. George Yardley and Mr. and Mrs. Forest Smith. - FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will'not have any significant environ- mental impacts. 3. That the proposed illumination will be installed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to' minimize light spillage and glare to the adjoining residential properties and streets. • Illlllll -72- Commissioner Winburn asked if the owner or resident of 1000 Mariners Drive had been notified of the proposed outdoor lighting, as this is the property which would . be directly affected by the proposal. Planning Director Hewicker stated that 1000 Mariners Drive was sent the public notice. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3025, All Ayes X X X X *'X subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will'not have any significant environ- mental impacts. 3. That the proposed illumination will be installed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to' minimize light spillage and glare to the adjoining residential properties and streets. • Illlllll -72- MINUTES March 10, 1983 m m m m 0 City of Newport Beach INDEX 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3025 will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. MNDITIONSa 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and sections. 2. That the lighting system ,shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be . prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 3. That the tennis court lighting shall not be turned on prior to 7 :00 a.m. and shall be turned off by 10:00 p.m. daily. x * i Item #12 Request to permit the construction of a bay window addition to an existing single family dwelling so as to, increase an existing nonconforming condition on the VARIANCE subject property relative to the amount of required . NO. 1096 open space in the R -1 District. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 21, Bay Front Section, East Side Addition to the Balboa Tract, REMOVED located at 1300 East Balboa Boulevard, FROM on the northeasterly corner of East CALENDAR Balboa Boulevard and "E" Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -1 -73- ROLL CALL Motion All Ayes X • * MINUTES March 10, 1983 City of Newport Beach INDEX APPLICANT: Frank 0. Ullrich, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Staff recommended that this matter be removed from the calendar, inasmuch as it has been determined that the approval of a variance is no longer required. The required amount of open space will exist on the site under the provisions of the recently adopted amendment to the Municipal Code that permits open space with a dimension of less than six feet in any direction when said space is contiguous to open space that meets the six foot dimension requirements. Motion was made to remove this item from the calendar, for the above stated reason, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * Item #13 Commissioner Goff stated that 20 dwelling units per buildable acre is in conflict with the Residential Growth Element which permits a maximum of 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. He requested.that the staff report address this concern. Chairman King stated that the Newport Crest Homeowners 1983 Association has requested that they be notified of the public hearing on.this item. Motion X Motion was made to set for public hearing on March 24, All Ayes X X X Z X * X 1983, a proposed amendment reclassifying the Seacliffe and Newport Terrace Mobile Home Parks from the Unclassified /MHP District to the Unclassified (2178) MHP District, and the remaining residentially - designated areas from the Unclassified District to the R -3 (2178) District, which MOTION CARRIED. • I�� I I I I I ** a -74- March 10, 1983 itv of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment Item #14 LOCATION: Property located northerly of Camelback Drive and southerly of the San Diego Creek between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Recommended to City ZONE: P -C and Unclassified Council that the OWNER: The-Irvine Company, Newport Beach proposed amendments INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach - be initiated Motion K Motion was made to recommend to the City Council that All Ayes X K K X X * X the proposed amendments to the. Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space, and Circulation Element be initiated for the area northerly of Camelback Drive, southerly of the San Diego Creek and • between Jamboree Road and MarAArthur Boulevard, which MOTION CARRIED. 4 * * * Zoning Amendment - CalTrans West Item #15 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 46 from the O -S (Open Space) District to the P -C (Planned Community) District. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as. realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreation and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S (Open Space) OWNER: State of California, Department of - Transportation Motion X - Motion was made to initiate and set for public hearing All Ayes X X K X X * X on March 24, 1983, an amendment to the Newport Beach Zoning Code to amend a portion of Districting Map No. • 46, commonly know as CalTrans West, from the O -S (Open Space) District to P -C (Planned Community) District. * * * -75- n x � r c c m x 0 m D .m� m March 10, 1983 itv of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment Item #14 LOCATION: Property located northerly of Camelback Drive and southerly of the San Diego Creek between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Recommended to City ZONE: P -C and Unclassified Council that the OWNER: The-Irvine Company, Newport Beach proposed amendments INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach - be initiated Motion K Motion was made to recommend to the City Council that All Ayes X K K X X * X the proposed amendments to the. Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space, and Circulation Element be initiated for the area northerly of Camelback Drive, southerly of the San Diego Creek and • between Jamboree Road and MarAArthur Boulevard, which MOTION CARRIED. 4 * * * Zoning Amendment - CalTrans West Item #15 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 46 from the O -S (Open Space) District to the P -C (Planned Community) District. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as. realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreation and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S (Open Space) OWNER: State of California, Department of - Transportation Motion X - Motion was made to initiate and set for public hearing All Ayes X X K X X * X on March 24, 1983, an amendment to the Newport Beach Zoning Code to amend a portion of Districting Map No. • 46, commonly know as CalTrans West, from the O -S (Open Space) District to P -C (Planned Community) District. * * * -75- MMISSIONERS1 MINUTES March 10, 1983 � m m m N. City of Newport Beach I I I I 1 I I INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Use ,Permit No. 3018 and Resubdivision No. 739 Motion X Motion was made to approve the Planning Commission All Ayes X X X X Y * X Minutes of February 24, 1983, as written, incorporating the Findings for Denial on 'Use Permit No. 3018 and Resubdivision No. 739, as indicated on the Additional Business staff report, which MOTION CARRIED. - 40 * * * There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 1:45 a.m. * * * Dave Goff, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -M-