Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/10/1988COMMISSIONERS MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING o91��Q0i�� PLACE: City Council Chambers ydG ��99 tiv� TIME: 7:30 p.m. 9 y f ! c DATE: March 10, 1988 ANk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R ALL INDEX Motion K Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Ayes x Pomeroy from the subject Planning Commission meeting. Absent .: x x x x x x MOTION CARRIED. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager W. William Ward, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of February 18. 1988: Minutes M n x Motion was made and voted on to approve the February 18, of 2 -18 -88 Ayes x x x x x x 1988, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Absent x Public Comments: Public No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Comments Posting of the Agenda: Posting of James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the the Agenda Planning Commission Agenda was posted on March 4, 1988, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuance: Request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Continuance applicant, S.D.C. Development, has submitted a letter requesting that Item No. 2, Resubdivision No. 863, located at 1600 Bison Avenue, be continued to the May 5, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSIONERS ym°yyyy'"oy"PN o _ y - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX Chairman Pers6n requested that the Belcourt Homeowner's Association be notified of the public hearing. Motion X. _Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 2, Ayes x x x x x Resubdivision No. 863, to the May 5, 1988, Planning Absent x Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Pers6n requested that Item 10, Amendment No. 657, and Item No. 11, Amendment No. 659, be brought forward on the agenda inasmuch as the Planning Commission may request that the said Amendments be combined with the General Plan Review that will be heard Motion x by the Planning Commission this summer. Motion was made Ayes x x x x x x and voted on to bring Items No. 10 and No. 11 forward on Absent x the agenda. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 657 (Public Hearing) Item No.10 A657 Request to consider amending portions of Districting Maps No. 9 and 11 so as to rezone all R -4 zoned property to the R -4 (1200) District and all SP -6 (R -4) zoned Removed • property to the SP -6 (R -4 -1200) District. The property from in question is located between McFadden Place and Adams Calendar Street on the Balboa Peninsula. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND Amendment No. 659 (Public Hearing) Item No.11 A659 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to delete provisions which require the removal of dwelling units which exceed the allowable Removed density permitted by the District in which they are from located when said dwelling units become 60 years old. Calendar The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the City Council at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, has initiated a comprehensive General Plan Review, primarily to review the circulation and land use • elements of the General Plan which were initially adopted in 1972. He explained the outreach program that has been established through the Mayor's office that -2- COMMISSIONERS y�G� 9N �9qq N9 �9Jc ° c c yo _ Z Zf�vZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX includes various community groups and associations. Mr. Hewicker stated that the development standards including intensity in the residential, commercial, and industrial areas of the City shall be amended in the Zoning Code. Chairman Pers6n recommended that the subject Amendments be removed from calendar inasmuch as the General Plan Review will include the R -3 and R -4 zoned property on the Balboa Peninsula, and that the General Plan Review will attempt to address the intensity of development and the traffic circulation system. Commissioner Di Sano concurred that the subject Amendments should be addressed during the General Plan Motion x Review. Motion was made to remove Amendment No. 657 and Amendment No. 659 from calendar. Chairman Pers6n stated that he would support the motion. Commissioner Debay and Mr. Hewicker discussed the community outreach program, and they advised that all interested parties may contact the Planning Department • for further information. Motion was voted on to remove Amendment No. 657 and Ayes x x Amendment No. 659 from calendar. MOTION CARRIED. Absent General Plan Amendment No. 88 -1 (B) (Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to consider amending the Land Use Element of the GPA88 -1(B) General Plan by adding a specific area description for (R1175) the City Corporation Yard so as to allow a refuse_ Approved recycling /transfer facility on the site. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Niederhaus, Director of General Services, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Niederhaus stated that the City Council has approved the concept to allow a refuse recycling/transfer facility at the City Corporation Yard. He further stated that the subject facility will save the City $570,000.00 the first year • of operation. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. -3- COMMISSIONERS - 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX Motion x Motion was made and voted on to approve General Plan Ayes x x x x x x Amendment No. 88 -1(B) (Resolution No. 1175). MOTION Absent x CARRIED. Resubdivision No. 863 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to resubdivide one lot into four parcels of land 8863 for commercial development. Continued LOCATION: Lot 6, Tract No. 12309 located at 1600 to Bison Avenue, on the northwesterly corner 5 -5 -88 of Bison Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, in the North Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C, APPLICANT: S.D.C. Development, Corona del Mar OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach • ENGINEER: Hunsaker & Associates,. Irvine James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the May 5, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Motion x Motion was made and voted on to continue Resubdivision Ayes x x x No. 863 to the May 5, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Absent x MOTION CARRIED. Resubdivision No. 864 (Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single 8864 parcel of land for two unit residential condominium purposes on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 233, Corona del Mar, located at 302 Fernleaf Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Fernleaf Avenue, between Seaview Avenue and Bayside Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 • APPLICANT: Newport Harbor Builders Inc., Newport Beach -4- COMMISSIONERS Nl\rx9C� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX OWNER: Seaview Venture, Limited, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Robin Hamers, Costa Mesa AND Resubdivision No. 865 (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to resubdivide an, existing lot into a single 8865 parcel of land for two unit residential condominium purposes on property located in the R- 2,District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 6, Block 233, Corona del Mar, located at 304 Fernleaf Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Fernleaf Avenue, between Seaview Avenue and Bayside Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Newport Harbor Builders Inc., Newport Beach • OWNER: Seaview Venture, Limited, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Robin Hamers, Costa Mesa Chairman Pers6n requested that Items No. 3 and No. 4 be heard concurrently inasmuch as two unit condominiums will be constructed on adjoining lots. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, agreed that the discussions may be heard concurrently; however, she stated that two separate motions will be required. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding grade, Mr. Hewicker explained that the proposed grade is at or below the existing grade of the site. He commented that the proposed projects shall consist of two condominium projects on two of the three lots, and the third lot is proposed as a single family dwelling. Commissioner Debay and Mr. Hewicker discussed the project's frontage on Fernleaf Avenue. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the commencement of the construction, Mr. Hewicker explained that building permits have been issued for duplexes on the two lots, and condominium maps must be recorded • prior to occupancy of the dwelling units. The public hearing was opened in connection with this -5- COMMISSIONERS 0 \131 9 <g CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10. 1988 R ALL INDEX item. Mr. Craig Hampton, Civic Building Concepts, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" of Resubdivision No. 864 and Resubdivision No. 865. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding grade, Mr. Hampton explained that the grade on the building pads is the. existing grade; that the retaining wall on two sides of the subject property was constructed over thirty years ago; and the wall on Fernleaf Avenue is the same type of wall that was approved by the grading plans to allow entrances into the buildings. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision x x x x x x No. 864 subject to the findings and conditions in t x Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. 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. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 5. That sidewalk reconstruction on Fernleaf Avenue will improve pedestrian safety. CONDITIONS: • 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy and that the Parcel Map be prepared using the State -6- COMMISSIONERS Am, srflvloi� y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX Plane Coordinate System. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. That all vehicular access, to the property be from the adjacent alley. 6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That the deteriorated and displaced portions of curb and sidewalk be reconstructed along the Fernleaf Avenue frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 8. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 9. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Motion x Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision Ayes x x x x x x No. 865 subject to the findings and conditions in Absent x Exhibit "A ". FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of -7- COMMISSIONERS g: A y�G�� �y�1o, 9 0 y o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R AI.L INDEX 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. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of the developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 5. That sidewalk reconstruction on Fernleaf Avenue will improve pedestrian safety. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy and that the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley. 6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That the deteriorated and displaced portions of curb and sidewalk be reconstructed along the Fernleaf Avenue frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 8. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. -8- COMMISSIONERS y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 RCMALL INDEX 9. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Use Permit No. 1771 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1771A permitted the establishment of an athletic club on property located in "Industrial Site 3A" in the Newport Approved Place Planned Community. The proposed amendment includes a request to allow the retention of an "as built" snack bar which includes the service of soup, salad, sandwiches and on -sale beer and wine. Said food • service activity will be limited to the members and guests of the private athletic club. The proposal also includes a request to enclose an existing basketball court and reduce the number of off - street parking spaces required in conjunction with the previously approved use permit. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 75 -39 (Resubdivision No. 500) located at 1701 Quail Street, on the southwesterly side of Quail Street, southeasterly of Birch Street in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANTS: University Athletic Club Ltd., Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Kent Trollen, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and • conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill -9- COMMISSIONERS %A o0 � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX regarding Condition No. 5 pertaining to the trash enclosure, Mr. Trollen replied that the trash enclosure will be provided on the site as designated on the site plan. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1771 (Amended) Motion subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Merrill referred to Condition No. 12 regarding the on -sale service of beer and wine. Mr. Hewicker explained that staff did not specifically recommend hours of beer and wine service because the hours would not be pertinent to the operation considering the development and location of the property. Commissioner Di Sano .stated that he would support the motion, and he commented that the applicant must comply with the approved conditions. 0 Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1771 (Amended) x x x x x x subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Absent x MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the snack bar will be open only to members of the club and their guests, and no new memberships will be created as a result of the establishment of the snack bar. Therefore, no increase in the demand for parking is anticipated. 4. That the proposed parking will be adequate to serve the facility. 5. That the approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. 1171 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 -10- COMMISSIONERS AG AN 9•p� 9 9), py9 4y �� X20 _ y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, and floor plans, and elevations except as provided in the following conditions. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1771 as approved by the Planning Commission on October 16, 1975, shall remain in effect. 3. That all employees of the restaurant shall park on- site. 4. That a minimum of 63 parking spaces shall be provided for the facility. 5. That the final layout of the parking lot shall meet . the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That handicapped parking shall be provided as required by Code, and that the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. A handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped parking space. 7. That all trash areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Quail Street and the surrounding properties. 8. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the snack bar where grease may be introduced into the drainage system in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code, unless otherwise provided by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 9. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. . 10. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage -11- COMMISSIONERS G mp �i F2.t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 RCIWALL INDEX into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 11. That a trash compactor be provided in the snack bar facility. 12. That the on -sale service of beer and wine shall be incidental to the service of food. 13. That the use of the snack bar shall be limited to the members and guests of the private athletic club only. 14. That all conditions of approval shall be implemented within 60 days from the effective date of this application, unless other arrangements are made with the Planning Department. i 15. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify i conditions of approval to this use permit, or •; recommend to the City Council the revocation of . this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 16. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ,tit* .Use Permit No. 3287 (Review) (Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to consider amending certain conditions of UP3287 approval in conjunction with a previously approved use permit that permitted the change in operational (Review) characteristics of a former take -out ice cream shop and Italian deli located in the C -1 District. Approved LOCATION: Lots 12 and 13, Block 9, Balboa Tract, located at 205 Main Street on the southwesterly corner of Main Street and • East Bay Avenue, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 -12- COMMISSIONERS G9y Nay C C y0 � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX APPLICANT: Britta K. Kvinge, Corona del Mar OWNER: Leopold Avallone, M.D., Pacific Palisades James Hewicker, Planning Director, reviewed the .original use permit that was approved by the Planning Commission on August 20, 1987, and he explained that the use permit was called up at the request of the Planning Commission to review the conditions as approved by the Planning Commission. He stated that staff's concerns are the number of seats allowed in the establishment inasmuch as no stools were addressed in the conditions of approval; that only two employees were to be on duty during peak hours of operation and that parking was available for said two employees behind the facility; and that the establishment would.continue to operate as a take -out restaurant as opposed to a sit -down restaurant. Mr. Hewicker explained that the subject facility was approved as a take -out restaurant which required 26 parking spaces, and the Planning Commission approved two parking spaces for the two employees and waived the • remaining 24 parking spaces. As a sit -down restaurant, Mr. Hewicker explained that the facility could be considered a destination restaurant which would require eight parking spaces. He stated that the restaurant currently employs five employees during peak hours of operation, three more employees than what was approved by the Planning Commission, and that additional on -site or in -lieu parking spaces would be required for the three additional employees. Commissioner Winburn referred to Condition No. 14 stating that the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval, and she commented that said condition had not been included in the original approved use permit. Mr. Hewicker commented that a permit was originally required from the Coastal Commission, but it was not included as a condition. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Hewicker replied that the Orange. Julius Restaurant is a take -out facility, and Chairman PersSn replied that Heidi's sit -down restaurant was approved with a waiver of all required offstreet parking spaces. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, 550 C Newport Center Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. King presented background information regarding the subject -13- COMMISSIONERS L.p \1C)\rr5\SV1t\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 ROWALL INDEX facility. Mr. King explained that the applicant assumed that the stools that were in the restaurant when she leased the facility were included in the number of seats that the Planning Commission approved in August, 1987, and that the beer and wine would be incidental to the food service. He explained that two additional employees were hired to serve as waitresses inasmuch as the applicant prepares the food for the customers. Mr. King commented that the waived parking has not been detrimental to the area, and that in addition to the two approved parking spaces, the applicant has signed a lease for one additional parking space for five years at the rear of the adjoining property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. King replied that the applicant has requested a waiver of all of the required parking spaces except for the two parking spaces that have been approved by the Planning Commission. He explained that there are five employees on the premises during peak business hours, and three employees are on the premises during non -peak hours. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. King replied that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of Condition No. 10 which states "that a minimum of two parking spaces shall be provided on -site for employee parking and that in -lieu parking fees shall be paid for three parking spaces in the Municipal Parking Lot.. ". Ms. Britta Kvinge, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Kvinge stated that she understands the conditions as approved by the Planning Commission in August, 1987. She stated that she has signed a five year lease with an option for a third parking space on the adjoining lot that is not being used because a retail business was closed on the adjoining property. In her reference to Condition No. 8 requesting that a washout area be provided, Mr. Hewicker suggested that she contact the Building Department for further details. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Ms. Kvinge described where the third parking space would be available behind the building. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and the applicant regarding the third parking space when the vacant retail site is occupied by another tenant. Chairman Pers6n -14- COMMISSIONERS m4�9gN99 y9�C 0m i. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 ROWALL INDEX explained that the subject building is a legal non- conforming building.' Mr. King reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the applicant intends to apply for a Coastal Commission permit. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Chairman PersGn addressed the additional parking space available to the applicant on the property, that the facility should not be considered a destination restaurant, and he complimented the .applicant on how much she has up- graded the property. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3287 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Winburn explained that she would not amend the foregoing Condition No. 10 because the majority of the restaurant business is sit -down which would normally require eight parking spaces. • Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion. She explained that the site would be more non- conforming if one tenant is allowed to take the majority of the parking spaces and cause the vacant property when leased, to provide parking for its employees elsewhere. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would not support the motion because of his concern regarding the intensity of the property for the area. Commissioner Debay stated that she would support the motion. She questioned the applicant's need to lease the one additional parking space if the applicant is required to purchase in -lieu parking spaces. Commissioner Winburn explained that she had concerns regarding the future lease of the vacant building, and that the required parking should be provided immediately. She referred to the required parking spaces for the employees and the waived parking spaces for the restaurant's patrons. Chairman PersGn stated that he would support the motion. He emphasized his disapproval of the City's in -lieu parking system. He addressed the variety and number of restaurant classifications on the Balboa Peninsula that are not destination restaurants; however, he clearly stated that the Balboa Peninsula should be considered a destination point because the aesthetics of the area -15- COMMISSIONERS y O fi\Cc z C9 O� m � ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX attracts the public. Chairman Pers6n, Assistant City Attorney Korade, and Mr. Hewicker discussed the legal non - conforming building and related parking requirements. Commissioner Di Sano concurred that the Balboa Peninsula is a destination area, and that in -lieu parking and traffic should be removed from the Peninsula area, and that other means of transportation should be provided for the visitors to the area. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3287 Ayes x x I x x subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". No MOTION CARRIED. Absent x FINDINGS: 1. That the subject restaurant is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to a portion of the required parking, parking lot illumination, circulation, walls, building setbacks, landscaping and utilities, will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the site has been developed and the structure has been in existence for many years. 4. That the proposed addition of on -sale beer and wine to the take -out restaurant as well as the expanded hours of operation, will not result in an increased parking demand for the area. 5. That the Planning Commission has approved several use permits for on -sale beer and wine in other existing restaurant facilities throughout the City without requiring additional parking spaces. 6. That there is adequate on -site parking for two of the restaurant employees, and a Municipal parking lot adjoins the property for the three additional employees. 7. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3287 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental -16- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 13001MALL INDEX to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS• 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, and floor plan. 2. That the development standards related to a portion of the required off - street parking spaces, building setbacks, parking lot illumination, circulation, walls, landscaping, and utility requirements are waived. 3. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold or consumed outside of the restaurant building. 4. That the hours of operation shall be limited from . 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. 5. That the serving of beer and wine shall be incidental to the primary function of providing food service and beer and wine shall not be sold prior to 10:00 a.m. 6. That all signs shall conform with Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 8. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way so as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the bay' or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened. 10. That a minimum of two parking spaces shall be provided on -site for employee parking and that in- • lieu parking fees shall be paid for three parking spaces in the Municipal parking lot on an annual basis for the three other employees. All employees -17- COMMISSIONERS y�G9y��NOy9� �� o9f. — 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 RAWALL INDEX shall park on -site or in the Municipal Parking lot. 11. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval of this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 12. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 13. That a maximum of 13 tables and 31 seats, including counter seating shall be permitted on -site. 14. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval in conjunction with the approved development. • 15. That all conditions of approval shall be implemented within 60 days from the effective date of this application, unless other arrangements are made with the Planning Department. Use Permit No. 3307 (Public Hearing) Item No.7 3307 Request to permit the installation of modular trailers to be used as office space on a temporary' basis on property located on "Light Industrial Sites No. 1 and 2" Approved in Koll Center Newport; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Tract No. 7953, located at 4311 Jamboree Road, on the northwesterly side of Jamboree Road, between MacArthur Boulevard, and Birch Street, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ZONES: P -C APPLICANT: Rockwell International, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant -18- COMMISSIONERS y ° 0 C, Gyy mGym� ( yG % MINUTES March 10, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R ALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Pat Allen, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Allen stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Commissioner Koppelman, and Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Allen replied that the trailers will be occupied by office personnel who will be coordinating current contracts and projects; that there is an immediate need; that the trailers will not be required beyond three years; and that the trailers will not be visible to the public. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3307 and Environmental Document, subject to the findings: and conditions in Exhibit "A ". • Commissioner Koppelman asked the maker of the motion to amend Condition No. 5 requesting that the subject application be approved by the Planning Commission instead of the Modifications Committee if the applicant would be extending the application beyond three years. She pointed out the number of temporary installations of trailers that have become permanent uses. The maker of the motion agreed to the amended condition. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3307 and Ayes x x x x x x Environmental Documents, subject to the findings and Absent x conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 5. MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. • 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. -19- COMMISSIONERS a�G�y�yNOy�c�� 9. + 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX B. Use Permit No. 3307: Approve the use Permit subject to the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That there will be adequate parking to serve the temporary modular trailers. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3307 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 to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevation, except as noted below. 2. That total development on -site shall not exceed 403,775 square feet. This condition will require the reduction of 6 sq.ft. of space in the proposed temporary facilities. 3. That handicapped parking shall be provided as required by. Code, and that the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. A handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped parking space. 4. That any restriping or revisions to the on -site parking layout shall meet the approval of the City • Traffic Engineer. 5. That this use permit shall be granted for a period -20- COMMISSIONERS � vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 ROWALL INDEX of three years, and any extension shall be approved by the Planning Commission. 6. At such time as the applicant's use of the temporary buildings cease or the use permit expires, whichever happens first, the buildings shall be removed from the site, and the property shall be restored to its present condition. 7. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 8. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • Use Permit No. 3310 (Public Hearine) Item No.8 UP3310 Request to establish an animal hospital in an.existing building on property located in the M -1 -A District. LOCATION: Lot 5, Tract No. 3201, located at 3720 .Approved Campus Drive, on the southeasterly side of Campus Drive, between Bristol Street North and Quail Street, across from the John Wayne Airport. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Central Orange County Emergency Animal Clinic, Inc., Costa Mesa OWNER: I.C.I..Properties, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Dr. Gail Roberts, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that she concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Dr. Roberts stated that the applicants are interested in a daytime • specialty veterinary practice sometime in the future. Chairman Pers6n explained that the applicants would be required to come back to the Planning Commission to -21- COMMISSIONERS 0 mG to 9N �9 A 9 9� Ask 9y MINUTES March 10, 1488 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R ALL INDEX amend the use permit so as to establish a daytime practice. Commissioner Winburn stated that because there may not be available daytime parking for daytime use that the applicants may want to consider moving to another location. Dr. Roberts commented that she was aware of the parking .formula that was indicated in the staff report; however, she said that her experience has been that there has been available parking when she has been on -site during the daytime. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Dr. Roberts stated that the number of employees for the daytime operation would be the same as for the nighttime operation; that the daytime practice would be a specialty practice which means that the patients would not stack up in the waiting room; the subject clinic will benefit from local veterinarians who will refer their patients to the nighttime facility in emergency cases; and that if the applicants elected to open a daytime facility, they would be required to sublease the facility. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Dr. Roberts stated that the applicants would only consider subleasing the facility subsequent to approval as a daytime operation. There being no others desiring to appear and be beard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3310 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Koppelman stated that inasmuch as a small staff would be necessary to operate a daytime facility, and that there is adequate employee parking, a Substitute substitute motion was made to approve Use Permit No. Motion x 3310 subject.to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the deletion of Finding No. 3 which states that the facility will operate only at night and on weekends and holidays, and to amend Condition No. 5 so as to indicate that the operation will consist of a 24 hour facility, open daily. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the original motion because her personal experience has been that a veterinary hospital could create a need for numerous parking spaces. 22 COMMISSIONERS y A 0 �A o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding available daytime parking, James Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that the parking only conformed to the parking requirements when the subject site was approved. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding tandem parking, Mr. Hewicker explained that a parking management plan would be required to provide accessible parking spaces. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would not support the substitute motion inasmuch as the parking review states that the site can only adequately accommodate nighttime hours. Substitute motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. Ayes x x 3310 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit Noes x x x "A ", including deleted Finding No. 3 and amended Absent x Condition No. 5. MOTION FAILED. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3310 A x x x x x subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". x MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the facility will operate only at night and on weekends and holidays, when other uses on the property will be closed, and there will therefore be adequate parking to serve the facility. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3310 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 to the general welfare of the City. • _23_ COMMISSIONERS y�o �" _ �2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 RCMALL INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2., That all employees of the facility shall park on- site. 3. That no tandem parking shall be permitted on -site. 4. That handicapped parking shall be provided as required by Code, and that the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. A handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped parking space. 5. That operation of the facility shall be restricted to the hours between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Monday through Thursday nights; between 5:00 p.m. Friday and 8:00 a.m. Monday; and all day on holidays. 6. That noise and odor from the animals shall be contained within the facility. 7. That no animals shall be kept on the premises other than those being treated at the clinic. 8. That all signs shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. That all new mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from view from Campus Drive and adjoining properties. 10. That all conditions of approval shall be implemented within 60 days from the effective date of this application, unless other arrangements are made with the Planning Department. 11. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, -24- COMMISSIONERS y� �3F�0 �N��� Z G9 s'o9' Cyo� r f - 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 12. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning. Commission recessed at 8:52 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Resubdivision No 862 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.9 Request to resubdivide two existing parcels of land into 8862 four parcels for single family residential development; and the acceptance of an environmental document. Approved LOCATION: Portions of Lot D, Tract No. 919, located at 2919 Cliff Drive, on the southerly • side of Cliff Drive, between Santa Ana Avenue and Riverside Avenue, in Newport Heights. ZONES: R -1 and R -3 APPLICANT: Hal Woods, Costa Mesa OWNER: Dr. Khosro Khaloghi, Costa Mesa ENGINEER: Millet & Associates Inc., Irvine James Hewicker, Planning Director, reported that a letter has been received from the applicants dated March 10, 1988, that stated "upon approval and signature of final parcel map for the property.., that the proponents agree to donate certain trees (to be referenced at a later date) and the amount of $5,000.00 for the purposes of helping in the relocation of the trees. ", to be made payable to the City's Parks Department. The applicant has also submitted a letter from the Orange Coast Title Company dated March 10, 1988, indicating that there are no covenants, conditions and restrictions on record for the subject property. Mr. Hewicker stated that letters from Tim Newman and Robert Hertzberg, and a petition . containing 10 signatures all in support of the project, were received prior to the subject public hearing. -25- COMMISSIONERS G 9y y C 'o�9Z 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding low density residential designations, Mr. Hewicker explained that the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates certain areas of the City certain densities, and that within some of the areas, specifically the older areas of the City, which were subdivided prior to the adoption of the General Plan, the City has used the density permitted under the existing zoning for infill type projects. He stated that it is staff's opinion that the proposed resubdivision conforms with the requirements of the R -1 District, using R -1 Zoning Standards. Commissioner Debay referred to the staff report's reference to Tract Map No. 12873, located adjacent to the Theater Arts Center on Cliff Drive, that was approved by the Planning Commission on November 6, 1986, and she asked if the. Newport Height's Community Association opposed the project? Mr. Hewicker replied that the said Association's position was generally in support of the project. Mr. Hewicker explained that the foregoing Tract Map included a total of six lots, a density of 6.7 dwelling units per buildable acre compared to the proposed project that includes 4 lots and a density of 5.5 dwellings units per buildable acre, subtracting out the private streets. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, 550 C Newport Center Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King stated that the upper portion of the property is zoned R -1, occupied by a single family dwelling which is currently leased to tenants, and the lower portion of the property is zoned R -3, and is now vacant. Mr. King stated that the applicant has met with representatives of the community on numerous occasions and that subsequent to those meetings the applicant has attempted to address many of their concerns. Mr. King stated that the applicant has met with personnel from the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and that a.public hearing has been scheduled to be heard by the PB&R Commission in April in reference to the adjacent parks. The offer by the applicant to relocate the trees currently on the subject site would benefit the public park areas. He stated that the applicant has met with the City Attorney's office regarding his property rights on the subject parcel. He • further stated that the applicant intends to construct sidewalks, implement an irrigation system for the landscaping that he proposes to maintain, and relocate -26- COMMISSIONERS ydG��+o�N�9C�'On� _ 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX trees in the parkway on the Cliff Drive right -of -way between the two public parks. Mr. King stated that the applicant concurs with Condition No. 13 requesting a Site Plan Review for the future development on the four parcels. He referred to the Negative Declaration supported by the Initial Study as required by CEQA, Council Policy K -3, and the project's conformance with the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. Mr. King stated that the project provides lot sizes from 7,000 square feet to 10,720 square feet, whereas the average lot size in the area is approximately 5,800 square feet. In reference to the view corridors, Mr. King explained that there are restrictions in the deeds that will accompany the sale of the houses so as to provide a 24 foot wide view corridor which includes a 19 foot wide. driveway. He further stated that the buildable pads are proposed to enhance the view from the adjoining public areas. Mr. King referred to the applicant's display, and he . commented that the houses represent a worse case scenario on the alternate plan. He stated that the correspondence that has been received by the Planning Commission in , support of the project represents residents from within the entire City inasmuch as the applicant is an architect who has designed homes throughout the area. In conclusion, Mr. King requested a show of hands from the audience in support of the project wherein 31 or 32 hands were raised. Mr. King emphasized that there is a public interest throughout the City inasmuch as these are not private parks enjoyed by only the local adjacent residents, but the parks are enjoyed by residents throughout the City. Mr. Hal Woods, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Woods stated that he and his three partners intend to develop and reside in the subject dwellings; that they have attempted to address the concerns of the members of the Newport Heights Community Association and adjacent residents on Cliff Drive; that the proposed density is in accordance with the General Plan and Zoning District; that the proposed four houses • would be downzoning the subject property inasmuch as the lower portion of the property is zoned R -3 which would allow the construction of six apartment units, and four single family residences would be permitted on the upper -27- COMMISSIONERS 1" 0 _ 9Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 ROWALL INDEX portion of the site; that approximately 4,000 square feet and 70 percent open space is proposed on the site which is more open space than currently exists for many of the properties in the area; the houses will be set back approximately 45 feet from the curb along Cliff Drive; he stated that he supports and has concerns regarding the proposed parkway and sidewalk on Cliff Drive between the two adjacent public parks; he described the natural topography and the proposed grading; that the second story of the proposed dwellings would be in line with the single story dwelling across Cliff Drive; that there is an intent to underground the overhead utilities; that the trees shall either remain on the property or be relocated but no tree will be destroyed; that the property values will increase in the area; that a view corridor shall be provided; that the park on the west side of the property will be cleaned up; and that the applicant will cooperate with the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department to do some transitional grading to minimize any retaining walls that will ultimately result with the proposed development. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the underground utilities, Mr. Woods explained the intent to remove one power pole in the park and one power pole in the public parkway, and to underground the utilities. Mr. Woods described an exhibit that he prepared and submitted showing those neighbors who supported and those who opposed the project. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the relocation of the trees, Mr. Woods replied that the intent is to commence grading and remove the trees after the permit process has been completed during the summer months. He stated that the trees would be available to the City and that he would be willing to assist the City in the relocation process. Mr. Woods described a landscape overlay that he had prepared to demonstrate the proposed landscaping, including the trees. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Woods stated that the 60 foot tall pine trees on Cliff Drive shall remain on the parcel. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Woods stated that the pine trees showing dead branches would be trimmed. 28_ COMMISSIONERS t•` %0 9 9 y�GV < �y9�C � � A016 qZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX Terry Watt, Urban Planner, a member of the .law firm of Shute, Mahoney and Weinberger representing Dr. Jan Vandersloot, resident of the Newport Heights area, appeared before the Planning Commission, to oppose the project for the following reasons: that the project is inconsistent with the Local Coastal Program and the General Plan; that the Planning Commission is unable to make the required subdivision findings (a) through (e) that are represented in the staff report; that the environmental .analysis is inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act because all of the significant impacts of the project have not been analyzed nor mitigated to warrant a Negative Declaration. Ms. Watt explained that where the General Plan and Zoning designations differ, the General Plan designation shall prevail which is consistent with State Law; that there was no evidence in the General Plan about the infill policy. If, in fact, that the City chooses to apply such policy and so does the Planning Commission in its decision, then the General Plan appears to be internally inconsistent which means that the City cannot approve any project, because it cannot make the findings required by the laws for consistency • with the General Plan. The General Plan and LCP call for a maximum of four units per acre on the entire site. The entire parcel is less than an acre, which means that under the General Plan, the applicant should be permitted less than four units and the alternative, based on the zoning, is not allowed by the General Plan. In addition, Ms. Watt indicated that a number of General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies have not been considered in the Initial Study which would reduce the buildable acre less than 31,000 square feet which means that the applicant would be permitted fewer than three units on the site. In reference to a statement made by staff, that the project is about five units per buildable acre, she said that would be well over four units per buildable acre. In addition, the Initial Study should show an analysis of the buildable acreage because without that information, .the Planning Commission may not have sufficient facts to make the required findings. She questioned if the Bluff Setback Ordinance would apply and said that was not analyzed in the Initial Study. If so, she said that the Local Coastal Program requires that in no case shall a property line be closer • than 40 feet to the edge of the bluff and these kinds of slopes should be considered in determining what is the buildable acreage. _29_ COMMISSIONERS 69y�oe'�9(C �yo .c `fy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 RCIWALL INDEX Ms. Watt continued by stating that the Initial Study and Negative Declaration are inadequate in that they do not analyze a number of significant impacts related to the project and they did not mitigate the significant impact. She stated that it is conceivable that an EIR should have been required. The Initial Study needs to be expanded to discuss-the LCP policies relating to the site which were not discussed including bluff protection, minimizing grading, habitat protection and view protection. And in conclusion, Ms. Watt stated that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. She then requested that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing so that further discussions can be pursued between the law firm, the applicant, and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Debay questioned what could result from a meeting between the applicant and the aforementioned law firm? Ms. Watt explained that an alternative to the proposed project could be a suggestion to construct one • or two dwelling units, depending on what the local regulations would allow. In reference to Commissioner Debay's statement that six units could be allowed on the R -3 lot, Ms..Watt replied that the development would be improper and illegal, that perhaps such a development is allowed by the City's Zoning Code but the zoning is not the prevailing law governing the City. Ms. Watt stated that the City may have acted under the infill ruling before, but she did not believe that the City had acted properly. Ms. Watt suggested that the applicant.could request a General Plan Amendment for the four proposed units. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, referred to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66474 which states that the City shall deny the parcel map if it makes any Findings designated as (a) through (g) in said Section. Ms. Watt corrected her earlier position and stated that she did not mean to mislead that there would be a, need to make Findings (a) through (e) in order to approve the project. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pers6n, Ms. Korade further stated that the General Plan and the Amendments to the General Plan are consistent with the Zoning Code. She stated that in the opinion of the City Attorney's Office, the Zoning Code and the General Plan -30- COMMISSIONERS - qZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX are consistent regarding the permitted density of the subject parcel. Ms. Korade explained that the General Plan was adopted in 1973, and when in 1976 the Zoning Code was recodified, reviewed, and subsequently adopted, it was implied that for the residential portions of the City which were zoned R -1 through R -4, the General Plan and Local Coastal Program would permit densities consistent with those zoning classifications. Ms. Korade stated that the General Plan discusses projects in terms of dwelling units per buildable acre, and that it is the intent of the General Plan to apply the number of dwelling units per buildable acre on vacant, undeveloped lots that are zoned "Planned Community ". Ms. Korade explained that if a lot is located in the R -1 District, then the R -1 zoning applies, and if a lot is located on.vacant property that is not zoned R -1 through R -4, then the General Plan designation of dwelling units per buildable acre applies. Ms. Korade further explained that a lot either has some specific type of zoning designation, or it has a dwelling unit per buildable acre designation, and that there are no two designations on one particular parcel, . which is why it is not inconsistent. Ms. Korade stated that within the General Plan the subject site is within Statistical Area "H" and the fact that the zoning designation controls is illustrated by a reference in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Ms. Korade stated that the Planning Commission could make additional findings such as: the General Plan has been consistently interpreted to allow densities permitted by the Zoning Code; and the residential dwelling units and population growth projection in the Land Use Element of the General Plan have consistently used the densities allowed by the Zoning Code. She explained the statistical areas that discuss growth projections in the City. In reference to the bluff setback, Ms. Korade stated that she was advised that the Coastal Bluff Ordinance does not apply to the subject property because it does not satisfy the specific criteria for the application. In reference to the environmental review process, she stated that it is the position of staff that the preparation of the environmental document has been adequate and an EIR is not required at this time; however, she said that the Planning Commission may order • the preparation of an EIR. Ms. Korade concurred with Commissioner Debay that it is -31- COMMISSIONERS 'yq \�, o,p��` 4Q � + 7y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 RdWALL INDEX the position of staff and the City Attorney's office .that a General Plan Amendment is not required. Mrs. Gail Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Heights Community Association to oppose the proposed project. Mrs. Demmer stated that the community is personally involved with the proposed project because of their personal interest in the public parks, and what will be developed between the two parks. She stated that the Association has met with the applicant on numerous occasions, and the Association selected a sub - committee of interested parties. She stated that after thoroughly studying the subject site, the Association has recommended that three R -1 structures be developed on the subject property. Mrs. Demmer requested that those in the audience in opposition to the project display a show of hands - 36 hands were raised. Commissioner Debay asked how the sub - committee was selected and who was on the committee. Mrs. Demmer replied that 5 members of the Association Board and 4 residents from the neighborhood were selected to be on the sub - committee which included Mr. Chuck Spence, Dr. Jan Vandersloot, Mrs. Debbie Gray, Mr. Walt Heim, Dr. Brennan Cassidy, Mr. Brion Jeannette, Mr. William Patrick, and Mr. Nick Pappas, Chairman. Commissioner Debay asked what position the Newport Heights Community Association took regarding the foregoing Tentative Map of Tract No. 12873, that permitted 6 residential lots on another portion of Cliff Drive? Mrs. Demmer replied that the Association studied the development intensely, that the applicants appeared before the Association on several occasions, that the applicants requested input from the neighbors and they received no opposition, that the development did not have the public interest compared to the subject parcel inasmuch as the residents have requested that the City purchase the subject parcel so as to expand the adjoining park and to continue the open space area, and that the foregoing tract did not have the same public interest because of its location, and because of the nature trees on the subject parcel. Commissioner Debay pointed out that the foregoing tract requested that six homes be developed on six lots, next to a park on the same bluff with similar views, and she questioned the difference between the two projects. Mrs: Demmer responded that the foregoing tract does not have a similar public view on Cliff Drive. -32- COMMISSIONERS $ A�^ $t^ 0-0 dG � 9N ��� N �� Cr 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX Chairman Pers6n stated that the Planning Commission . spent numerous hours, regarding the foregoing tract because the Planning Commission had been led to believe that no views would be lost; however, he explained that after a study had been completed, the Planning Commission determined that the views were impacted. Chairman Pers6n stated that the Planning Commission made significant changes to the project so as to maintain views. In reference to when the Planning Commission approved the foregoing tract on Cliff Drive, Commissioner Winburn stated that residents in the immediate area were in opposition to the project because of the impacts that the tract was creating; however, she stated that the Newport Heights Community Association had written a letter in support of the project. Mrs. Demmer stated that none of the residents opposing the project had attended their Association meetings. Commissioner Winburn commented that views would have been lost directly bayward from the park located adjacent to the entrance of the Theatre Arts Center. In reference to the subject property, Commissioner Winburn stated that the • trees are overgrown, and that there would be no view impact; however, she said that the trees that were located on the foregoing tract were not overgrown, the view was much more available to the public at the park adjacent to the Theatre Arts Center, and the public had much more to complain about the loss of view than that regarding the subject parcel. Commissioner Koppelman clearly emphasized that if the Planning Commission would deny the proposed project, that the property owner could provide more intense development, such as one enormous house which would effectively remove all possibilities of view corridors, which would be far worse than what is being proposed. Mrs. Demmer stated that the Association is aware that more intensity could be developed on the subject parcel. Commissioner Koppelman stated that the property owner could develop the bulk of the property without coming to the Planning Commission requesting a subdivision, which would be far more disastrous to the homeowners and the residents who are directly impacted by the project than what is being proposed. Mrs. Demmer commented that if the applicant proposed to develop one large structure on the subject parcel, that would be another situation. In . conclusion, Commissioner Koppelman questioned why the -33- COMMISSIONERS yq �` �0, �0 NO�� AG 'AN �\Irr Q t �° o � y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10. 1988 R011MALL INDEX Newport Heights Community Association would believe that the view impairment would be more likely on the proposed project than on the foregoing tract which was approved with smaller lots, because of the configuration of the park adjacent to said tract which was far more impacted by public view than the proposed project. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the Newport Heights Community Association, Mrs. Demmer stated that she did not know the number of properties that the Newport Heights Community Association included, that approximately sixty members attended the meetings, that there are 23 active Board members, and that approximately ten percent of the residents pay dues. She said that approximately 27 residents from the existing neighborhood attended the meeting when the applicant made his presentation, that she did not know how many properties were represented, and 10 residents were selected to the sub - committee at that time. Mr. Walter Heim, 504 Westminster Avenue, appeared before the. Planning Commission representing himself, and in • support of the proposed project. He stated that he is a Second Vice President of the Association but that his views are not shared with the majority of the Board. He commented that no public views would be lost, the proposed density is below the development potential of the site, massive development could be constructed on the property, that the applicant is sensitive to the area, the applicant will maintain the trees, and the more lots proposed for the project, the greater view potential. He questioned the ethics of the Association's Board of Directors regarding the guidelines of how the sub - committee was selected, the potential conflict of interest of many of the sub - committee members, and the review procedures. Mrs. Debbie Gray, 474 Westminster Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed project, and as a member of the appointed sub- committee she supported Mr. Heim's foregoing testimony. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mrs. Gray replied.that she was not at the meeting when the sub - committee took a vote on the proposed project, that she did not receive a notice of the meeting until the day after the meeting, and that the members voted • who happened to be attending the meeting. Mrs. Gray stated that she had presented her views regarding the proposed project at a previous meeting. -34- COMMISSIONERS _ 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 ROWALL INDEX Mrs. Jeannine Goff, 406 San Bernardino Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission as Vice President of the Newport Heights Community Association. She stated that the members of the Association's sub - committee volunteered to be on the committee, that there are more than 60 members in the Association, and she requested an explanation of the view corridors. Mr. Hal Woods reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Woods described the view corridors that were originally proposed. He stated that after the applicants met with the Association, that they revised their plans, and he described the view corridor from the public sidewalk and from the property across the street. Mr. Nick Pappas, 434 Santa Ana Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, Chairman of the Newport Heights Community Association's sub - committee. He referred to the letter received by the Planning Commission from the Association reflecting the views of the sub - committee and adopted by the members of the Association at.a.later meeting.. He referred to the- approximately 27 letters opposing the project signed by residents of Newport Heights. He stated that the sub- committee voted on a Saturday morning after the had heard a .members presentation by the applicant. He commented that Councilwoman Hart attended the meeting, and that Mrs. Gray was present at the meeting but that she elected to leave the meeting prior to the vote. Mr. Pappas stated that the sub - committee voted inasmuch as six of the nine members were present, resulting in a 5 to 1 vote opposing the proposed project. Mr. Pappas recommended that if the Planning Commission approved the project, that the Association would request that a Site Plan Review be required. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Pappas stated that he knows the property owner, that they have had previous business dealings, but that there is no pending litigation. Commissioner Debay referred to Condition No. 13 which states that the proposed parcels shall be subject to the approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding who was responsible for the letter distribution opposing the proposed project, Mr. Pappas replied that he xeroxed the letters. He explained that strong feelings by the residents had been expressed, and the residents who signed the letters were -35- COMMISSIONERS B ��AA99 yy a MINUTES March 10, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R01MALL INDEX unable to attend the public hearing. Commissioner Koppelman asked if the residents are opposing the proposed project or if the primary objection is an emotional one? Mr. Pappas replied that the Association and the City have been working together to improve the area, that it is an emotional issue with the local residents for personal reasons, that they cannot believe that replacing one single story house with four two story houses is an improvement to the area, that two houses on Cliff Drive and one house on the lower parcel is a reasonable development that would allow a reasonable view corridor, and that the applicant commented that there would be a financial hardship if he developed on less than four lots. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Pappas stated that the sub - committee did not consider development of three houses on the bluff and open space below. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:30 p.m, and reconvened at 10:38 p.m. Chairman Person indicated that there were legal issues that needed to be resolved and that he did not think that those.issues could be resolved during the subject public hearing. He suggested that the public hearing be continued to a later Planning Commission meeting. He requested that the legal issues come back to the Planning Commission in a staff report. His concerns were the consistency of the General Plan, the Bluff Ordinance, and the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Koppelman stated that her concerns were provisions in the General Plan, and the Bluff Ordinance, and that she would support a continuation of the Resubdivision. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Ms. Korade and Mr. Hewicker replied that the public hearing could be continued, but that staff would require sufficient time to prepare an informative staff report. Ms. Watt reappeared before the Planning Commission to state that the law firm's associates would contact the City Attorney's Office regarding their concerns. Mrs. Margaret Motta, 2700 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that she was not • contacted by the applicant, and she questioned the similarity of the letters in support of the project that were attached to the staff report from Mr. Baljeu and -36- COMMISSIONERS Z�G�y�yNO� f��o q2 MINUTES March 10, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R ALL INDEX Mr. Tom Williams. Mrs. Hotta stated that the loss of the view of the trees from throughout the City and Newport Harbor is a concern, and that the public believes the opinion that the subject parcel is a park. Mr. Charles Spence, 2910 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed project. He stated that the applicant has not contacted him personally, that currently there is heavy traffic coming from automobile dealerships located on West Coast Highway testing their automobiles on Cliff Drive, and that the construction of four houses on the subject property would add to the traffic congestion. In response to numerous questions posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Spence replied that the Association's recommendation of three houses is better than the four houses proposed, that the Association considered other development alternatives, and that they support Condition No. 13 regarding a Site Plan Review. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Spence replied that the applicant did not personally contact him at home, but that he had attended a meeting to hear the applicant's presentation. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the dwelling that currently exists on the subject parcel, Mr. Spence stated that he did not know if the property had been converted into a triplex. Mrs. Marian Rayl, 426 San Bernadino Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to previous statements regarding the Newport Heights Community Association, Mrs. Rayl .explained the purpose of the Association, that there are no dues, that there are no CC&R's, that the community has worked together with the City to develop Cliff Drive Park including a playground for children, that they have, established an annual Memorial Day picnic, and in conclusion she stated that the Association consists of a group of active residents who are interested in what is happening in their community. Mrs. Rayl explained that the primary reason the residents are emotionally involved with the subject project is because of their concerns regarding the existing mature trees on the site. She stated that the trees located on the subject parcel appear to be the backdrop of the parks, and she described the original plans that were presented to the Association by the applicant's architect and how a proposed driveway would have affected the aesthetics of the park. Mrs. Rayl I 37 COMMISSIONERS _ L Ir 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX commented that the architect's plans have been revised and now the driveway is proposed to go through the center of the proposed project. Chairman Pers6n pointed out that the Planning Commission is not in a position to deny an applicant his property rights solely to preserve trees, and that mitigation measures will be considered by the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mrs. Rayl replied that she had not seen the proposed tree location plan. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mrs. Rayl replied that the park located at the corner of Cliff Drive and Riverside Avenue has not had the same amount of improvement as the Cliff Drive Park. She commented that she likes the overgrown trees, that the views from the parks are beautiful, but that the residents are also very interested in preserving the parks for the children. Dr. Khosro,Khaloghi, property owner, appeared before the • Planning Commission. Dr. Khaloghi stated that there is litigation pending between himself and Mr. Pappas. He stated that he has owned the property for 11 years. He further stated that he had plans to construct a 17,000 square foot single family dwelling on the subject parcel, and if that project had been completed, all of the trees would have been removed and there would have been no view corridor on the property. Dr. Khaloghi explained that he could legally develop a six unit apartment complex on the lower parcel. Dr. Khaloghi said that the Association has not invited him to attend any of their meetings, and that he was turned away at the door one Saturday morning. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker regarding the foregoing statement regarding a triplex, Dr. Khaloghi replied that when he purchased the property the structure consisted of three kitchens, and three separate bathrooms; however, the dwelling has not been used as a triplex since he has owned the property. Mrs. Coralee Newman, 2809 Broad Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the project. She stated that she and her husband are members of the Newport Heights Community Association, that the • applicant is sensitive to the community's concerns, that they have met with the applicant personally and he responded to their concerns, because the Newman's have a -38- COMMISSIONERS ZA RI0 0 X Nrvo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL % INDEX young family they will appreciate the proposed sidewalks along Cliff Drive and Riverside Avenue, that the residents enjoy the parks along Cliff Drive and the views from those parks, the parks have improved their property values, that the parks should not extend into private property, and the proposed four single detached homes will be low density on lots that are proposed to be larger than the majority of the lots in Newport Heights. Mrs. Newman stated that she concurs with the residents regarding the parks, and that she supports the applicant's tree program of transferring the trees into the parks. Mrs. Newman questioned if the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, is willing to move the trees into the parks, and she suggested that the tree location program be an added condition. Mrs. Newman suggested that the trees be relocated to an area adjacent to the chain link fence along the slope area of the park. Mr. Marco Baljeu, 2953 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the project. Mr. Baljeu referred to his letter referred to earlier and he emphasized that there is a similarity between his letter and Mr. Williams letter but that he willingly personally signed the letter. Mrs. Corinne Spence, 2910 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the project. Mrs. Spence read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Manfred R. Stever, 217 Santa Ana Avenue, stating their opposition to the project because of their concerns regarding the high density in Mariner's Mile and Newport Heights, and that, four additional single family dwellings would add to the density and to traffic congestion on Santa Ana Avenue. Ms. Hiroko Ogata, Newport Heights resident, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the project on the basis that density does not dictate quality. Ms. Ogata stated that the tree relocation and maintenance may not be available if the applicant developed three dwellings. The Planning Commission discussed a possible continuance of the Resubdivision based on their previous concerns regarding the legal issues. Mr. Hewicker and Ms. Korade pointed out that under the Subdivision Map Act that the project would require action within fifty days or the Resubdivision would automatically be approved. In -39- COMMISSIONERS A7j. y F't^oomm 94,? e.�y fC 4y0 ` y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R8WALL INDEX response to questions posed by the Planning Commission, Ms. Korade explained the background information that the City Attorney's Office had prepared prior to the subject public hearing, and for that reason Ms. Korade stated that she had presented the pertinent facts during her previous testimony. The Planning Commission recessed at 11:27 p.m. and reconvened at 11:30 p.m. Mr. Woods reappeared before the Planning Commission, and he stated that it was the opinion of himself and his partners, the property owner, and legal counsels, that the project was in conformance with the General Plan, and that there were findings for the approval of the project. Mrs. Dana Baljeu, 2953 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the project. She questioned if there would be that much difference in traffic if three or four houses would be developed. Mr. Hewicker replied that the difference would be 12 daily • trips. Mr. William Patrick, 2804 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, as a member of the Association's sub- committee and as an adjacent neighbor. He stated that he would be the most affected by the project, that his only contact with the applicant was at the Association meetings, that in 1984 when he purchased his property he was not informed of the infill policy when he was making inquiries with City officials. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Patrick replied that he built his own home, and that his lot size is 50 feet wide with a depth of 170 feet. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Patrick replied that his house consisted of a balcony, and 5,700 square feet of floor area. Mrs. Helen Kritzcamp,, 2961 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the project. She stated that she owns an acre of land on Cliff Drive, that she has not. spoken with the applicant, that the development will improve the area where she has lived for 41 years, and that her primary concern is the traffic impact created by Newport Imports on Cliff Drive. Mr. Daniel Clark, 415 San Bernardino Avenue, appeared -40- COMMISSIONERS � Z . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX before the Planning Commission. He stated that his primary concern is Avon Creek, and he requested that the Planning Commission take the item under consideration.. Dr. Brennan Cassidy, 2920 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission as a member of the Association's sub- committee, and he reluctantly opposed the project. He stated that he was not present when the Association voted on the project, and he suggested a compromise between the interested parties. He commented that his view would be affected by the proposed project. In response to Chairman Persbn, Dr. Cassidy stated that he was not familiar with all of the sub - committee's discussions regarding the proposed project, and he complimented the applicant on the project's design. Mrs. Karen Harrington, 441 Santa Ana Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Harrington stated her concern regarding the disagreements between the Newport Heights residents. She questioned if the 31 persons who raised their hands in support of the project lived in the neighborhood. • Mr. .Kirk Evans, 1 Rue du Pare, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the project, and he questioned why the Planning Commission should consider continuing the project because the staff report was very conclusive, and that the project has been designed to support the area. Mr. Stanton W. Davies II, 444 Tustin Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, and as a member of the Association, he supported the project. Mr. Jerry King, representing the applicant, reappeared before the Planning Commission, and he explained that a previous property owner had dedicated the park area westerly of the existing residence, and that an additional view corridor would be provided inasmuch as the garage that encroaches into the park area will be removed. In rebuttal, Mr. King replied that the applicant did not positively respond to Dr. Cassidy's request that the proposed structures be built with flat roofs; that the applicant left his business card at the adjacent residence but that the resident never returned his call; and that Mrs. Rayl had been informed of the proposed tree program and views. Mr. King stated that he had been advised by a member of the Newport Heights Community Association that there are approximately 1,200 residents in the community, and 100 -41- COMMISSIONERS yd 9N 9�A v 1 9a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX Association members, 23 active members who participate, and six residents made the final vote on the project. Mr. Woods, the applicant, Chairman Pers6n, and Ms. Watt discussed the possible continuance of the subject Resubdivision. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pers6n and Commissioner Koppelman, Ms. Korade replied that the City Attorney's Office met with the applicant and his legal counsel, and staff from the Planning Department and the Public Works Department prior to the subject public hearing. Ms. Korade explained that the staff report and staff's testimony has recognized all but the bluff issue. She pointed out that the Planning Commission is familiar with the environmental document, that additional data could be addressed regarding the General Plan consistency issues but the staff report addresses the basic issues between the R -1 Zoning Designation and other zoning designations, and dwelling units per buildable acre. Mr. Woods reappeared before the Planning Commission, and • requested that the Planning Commission take action on the Resubdivision. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Debay referred to the staff report and based on the statement that stated "inasmuch as the proposed parcel map fully conforms to the minimum design requirements for the R -1 District; that it is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan; and that the proposed resubdivision is comparable to other similar applications involving property on Cliff Drive which have previously been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. ", motion was made to approve Motion x Resubdivision No. 862 and the related Environmental Document subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Koppelman requested the maker of the motion to add two additional findings as follows: Finding No. Amended 13: "That the General Plan has been consistently interpreted to allow densities permitted by the Zoning Code "; Finding No. 14: "That the residential dwelling units in relationship. to growth projections were consistently used by the densities allowed by the Zoning Code in the statistical analysis of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. ". The public hearing was reopened, -42- COMMISSIONERS .Ml� :oG� mo�9°�c90 y �� ! Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX and in response to a request by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Hewicker explained the facts to support added Finding No. 14. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Debay stated that she would agree to added Findings No. 13 and No. 14. Commissioner Koppelman requested that Condition No. 25 Amended be amended to state "that the tree relocation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect which will maintain the one existing oak tree, and the two existing pine trees on -site, and relocate the palm trees either on or off -site per applicant's letter dated March 10, 1988, containing an offer to donate $5,000.00 to help in the relocation of the trees, upon approval and signature of the Final Parcel Map." Commissioner Debay concurred with suggested amended Condition No. 25. Commissioner Merrill requested additional information regarding the issue of undergrounding the overhead utilities that are located on the subject parcel, and based on that information and with the consent of Don Webb, City Engineer, he requested that Condition No. 28 �ded be added requesting "that the overhead electrical and telephone lines be undergrounded to the first power pole in the alley, and that the one power pole in the park and the one power pole on the subject property shall be removed." The maker of the motion agreed to added Condition No. 28. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion based on the additional findings and the legal information that was obtained from the City Attorney's Office. She referred to the previous approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12873, and commented that of the six lots that were proposed on that property, five of those lots are smaller than the lots that the applicant is requesting, and the density of the tract map is 6.7 dwelling units per buildable acre compared to the 5.5 dwelling units proposed by the applicant on the subject property. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the project. She commented that it is a good project, that the alternative could be an enormous house built on top of the bluff, that the applicant is willing to work with the City regarding the relocation of the trees and retaining the trees on the property, that Condition No. 13 requiring a Site Plan Review will give the Planning • Commission an opportunity to review the plans, that she felt more comfortable regarding the legal issues -43- COMMISSIONERS \-PLt9� �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX relating to the project knowing that the City Attorney's Office has thoroughly studied the project, and.that she could not find any reason not to support the project. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the project, commended the residents' participation, that the City Attorney's Office has given the best advise available at this time, and that the proposed project has a good social redeeming value to the area. Chairman PersGn stated that he would support the motion. He said that after reviewing the project and hearing testimony, that he was concerned with what the other alternatives could be for the site, which could have a greater impact on the community than the subject project. Ayes x x x x x x Motion was voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 862, including added Findings No. 13 and No. 14, and amended Absent x Condition No. 25 and added Condition No. 28,, and Environmental Document. MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. B. Resubdivision No. 862: Approve the Resubdivision subject to the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed • subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of -44- COMMISSIONERS yd �y Fy p'O,e v�mv Gtr Np9itayl- 9,� � y MINUTES March 10, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R ALL INDEX 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. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.08.1020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 5. That the sidewalk construction on Riverside Avenue will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. 6. That vehicular access to Riverside Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue (Cliff Drive Park) would not be compatible with park uses and would create a hazard to pedestrian and bicycle safety. 7. That the public parkway area on Cliff Drive is needed to provide access between the adjoining parks, and should be developed to encourage public • use. 8. That the sensitive location of the subject property between two public parks requires that any future development of the proposed parcels be subject to the review and approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission. 9. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 10. That the area, width and depth of the proposed parcels fully conform to the minimum design requirements for the R -1 and R -3 Districts. 11. That the area of each of the proposed parcels is greater than a majority of the existing lots within the neighborhood. 12. That the proposed resubdivision is comparable to other similar applications involving property on Cliff Drive which have previously been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. 13. That the General Plan has been consistently • interpreted to allow the densities permitted by the Zoning Code. 14. That the residential dwelling units in relationship -45- COMMISSIONERS yq 0�0OSO��. Gay _ vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 RdWALL INDEX to growth projections were consistently used by the densities allowed by the Zoning Code in the statistical analysis of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and Planning Department. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard Subdivision Agreement .and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee. satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an • individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. A private utility easement will be required across Parcel No. 2 for the benefit of Parcels No. 1 and No. 3 for private sewer laterals. 5. That public drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 6. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer, and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. S. That the Public Works Department plan check and • inspection fee be paid. 9. That an 8 foot wide sidewalk be constructed along -46- COMMISSIONERS °gym d� 9N 9'•°09 9 GytO� py9CC �Q c � tyy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 RCIWALL INDEX the Riverside Avenue Frontage to connect with existing sidewalks. 10. That the 30± foot wide public parkway on Cliff Drive be improved in a manner which would encourage public use and connect the two parks on either side of the property. The improvements are to include a 6 foot wide meandering sidewalk and landscaping to be approved by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department. Driveway widths are to be minimized and shared if possible to maximize landscaping in the parkway. Any grading of the public parkway below the standard 28 slope towards the street and non- standard paving improvements shall be done after an encroachment permit and a non - standard improvements agreement has been reviewed by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and approval by the City Council. 11. That vehicular access rights to Riverside Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue (Cliff Drive Park) be • dedicated to the City. 12. Should the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department wish the applicant to install sidewalks in a portion of the public parks on Cliff Drive, the applicant shall be given an equal credit for the cost of said construction, to be applied,to the project's required park dedication fee. 13. That the future development of.each of the proposed parcels shall be subject to the approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission. 14. That each parcel shall be for single family residential development only. 15. The design of the future driveway for Parcel No. 4 shall provide adequate turn- around area so as to eliminate the necessity of backing vehicles out of the parcel onto Cliff Drive. 16. Driveway slopes shall be subject to further review by the Public.Works Department. 17. The driveways shall be redesigned so as to • intersect the street at an angle nearer to 90 degrees. 18. That development of the site shall be subject to a -47- COMMISSIONERS q *6 ym�9y?+9�oyy�4 F� O � 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10. 1988 RCIWALL INDEX grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 19. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based upon recommendations of a Soils Engineer and Engineer- Geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. The soils investigation shall include a detailed slope stability analysis. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 20. That .a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential effects from silt, debris, and other pollutants. 21. That the grading permit shall include, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to • minimize impact of haul operations. 22. That an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department; and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 23. That the velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 24. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty (30) days after grading, or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 25. That the .tree relocation plan shall be prepared by a Landscape Architect which will maintain the one existing oak tree, and the two existing pine trees on -site, and relocate the palm trees either on or off -site per applicant's letter dated March 10, 1988, containing an offer to donate $5,000.00 to help in the relocation of the trees, upon approval and signature of the Final Tract Map. • 26. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the recordation of the parcel map. -48- COMMISSIONERS 'ZA 0 a��m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1988 R ALL INDEX 27. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. 28. That the overhead electrical and telephone.lines be undergrounded to the first power poles in the alley, and that the one power pole in the park and the one power pole on the subject property shall be removed. i DISCUSSION ITEMS: Discussion Items Joint City Council /Planning Commission Meeting JOINT CC/ INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach PC MEETING Motion x Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to Ayes x : x x x x x the March 24, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Absent x CARRIED, • ** Discussion of Wind Signs Wind Signs. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion, x Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to Ayes x x x x x x the March 24, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Absent x ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business Motion x Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Ayes x x x x x x Koppelman from the Planning Commission meetings of March Absent x 24, 1988 and April 7, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 12:14 a.m. Adjournment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -49-