Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/24/1988COMMISSIONERS I�G�„ t^9N \\�rl �y �Z y0 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: March 24, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RdWALL INDEX Present Absent * Commissioner Koppelman was absent. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney .William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Dick Hofstadt, Subdivision Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of March 10, 1988: Minutes Commissioner Winburn referred to page 33, second of 3 -10 -88 paragraph, and she stated that her comment regarding the knoll area has been deleted at her request. Commissioner Merrill referred to page 43, paragraph 3, line 5, and stated that Condition No. 26 should read Condition No. 28. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve the March 10, Ayes * * * * * 1988, Planning Commission Minutes as amended. MOTION Absent CARRIED. Abstain * Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Posting _of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Agenda Agenda was posted on "March 18, 1988, in front of City Hall. • COMMISSIONERS ym v� 9N 9�•O,o v �9t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3065 (Review)(Public Hearing) Item No.! Request to consider amending conditions of approval in UP3065 conjunction with Use.Permit No. 3065 which permitted the (Review) expansion of the existing Woody's Wharf Restaurant on property located in the "Recreational and Marine Approved Commercial" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. Said, approval also allowed the purchase of in -lieu parking spaces for a portion of the required off- street parking and the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces with a full time valet parking . service. LOCATION: Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 223, Section A, Newport Beach, and a portion of Lot 2, Section 33, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, located at 2318 Newport Boulevard, on the northeasterly side of Newport Boulevard, between 23rd Street and 26th Street in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Ralph Furra, Newport Beach OWNER: Ruth Payne Smith, Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Ralph Furra, applicant appeared before the Planning Commission. Chairman Pers6n asked the applicant if he had any concerns regarding the findings and conditions contained in the staff report inasmuch as Mr. Furra is a new owner of Woody's Wharf Restaurant and the Planning Commission wanted to be certain that Mr. Furra understood all of the conditions that presently exist under the subject use permit. Mr. Furra referred to Condition No. 16, stating "that all new construction shall maintain a 10 foot .setback from the bulkhead line (i.e. 2 feet in from the existing bulkhead) and a 6 foot setback from the northerly side property line. ". Mr. Furra explained that if he would be required to build a glass barrier two feet behind the bulkhead to control the noise, as suggested in the staff report, then the public would have an access area between the glass barrier and the bulkhead and along the -2- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX side of the building. Mr. Furra requested that he be permitted to build the glass barrier out to the bulkhead because then he would have an ability to control the noise. In reference to Condition No. 10, stating "that the use of the exterior deck shall cease at 11:00 p.m. nightly. ", Mr. Furra requested that the deck be allowed to remain open until the regular operating hour of 2:00 a.m. In response to a question .posed by Chairman Pers6n, James Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that public notices were mailed to properties within 300 feet of the subject parcel and the applicable Community Associations. Mr. Hewicker stated that the property owners in the mobile home park across the Rhine Channel from the subject restaurant were not notified because the mobile home park is not located within 300 feet of the restaurant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay i regarding the exterior deck, Mr. Furra replied that the entertainment will be confined to the interior of the restaurant. j Chairman Pers6n commented that he would not consider expanding the operating hours on the exterior deck to 2:00 a.m. until the mobile park property owners had been notified. Commissioner Winburn referred to Condition No. 12 requesting "that the existing drive apron be removed and be replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and that a new 24 foot wide drive apron be constructed approximately 18 inches north of the existing drive apron. ". In response to Commissioner Winburn's question, Mr. Furra replied that he would comply with the required public improvements and that said improvements could be completed within sixty days, including the foregoing glass barrier. Commissioner Winburn and Mr. Furra discussed the restriping of the parking lot, and the driveway. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hewicker replied that staff requested the glass partition be set back two feet from the bulkhead because the City foresees a public walkway on the site • and if a glass partition would be constructed within the 10 foot setback area, then there could be a problem in obtaining access to the bulkhead. Mr. Hewicker suggested that a condition could state that if a public 3 COMMISSIONERS y ° o�w t' d ii '�w 9,�'�•p q rya, G�y9o�gl ff �o �y CITY OF NEWPORT. BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX access easement parallel to the bay were required in the future, that the glass wall be relocated at the expense of the applicant. Mr. Furra agreed with the recommendation. In response to Chairman Pers6n regarding the public notice, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney and Mr. Hewicker, explained that the public notice was worded so that the Planning Commission could consider amending any of the conditions of approval in conjunction with the subject use permit. Commissioner Winburn stated her concern that the exterior deck's change of operating hours could be amended without notifying the mobile home property owners. Chairman Pers6n also stated his concern; however, he commented that if the applicant did not comply with all of the conditions of approval that the use permit could come back to the Planning Commission for view. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, . the public hearing was closed at this time. Chairman Pers6n and Commissioner Winburn discussed Condition No. 15 requesting a sound attenuation glass enclosure that would deflect the sound back towards the restaurant. Chairman Pers6n and Ms. Korade discussed the sound monitor that the Police Department recently purchased to allow them to measure noise at the property line. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3065, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the following changes: Condition No. 10; "that the exterior deck shall cease at 12:00 midnight "; Condition No. 15, that reference to "glass enclosure" shall be amended to state "glass wall "; and Condition No. .16, "that the glass wall shall be permitted to encroach to the bulkhead until a public access easement area parallel to the bay is required by the City, at which time the glass wall shall be relocated at least 2 feet back of the bulkhead at the applicant's expense." At the request of Ms. Korade, Chairman Pers6n suggested that the condition further state "that prior to the exercising of the use permit, the applicant shall execute an agreement with the City to the effect that no vested rights shall be acquired to maintain the glass wall, or any portion of the glass wall." • Discussion ensued between Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Hewicker regarding Condition No. 21 regarding a -4- COMMISSIONERS q N� Am, ZC�y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24. 1988 ROWCALL INDEX resubdivision, and perhaps a condition that would require an agreement and posting of a bond prior to issuing a building permit in connection with the required public improvements. Chairman Pers6n emphasized that the applicant must comply with the required conditions of approval or the Planning Commission could bring the use permit back which could result in the removal of the exterior deck inasmuch as said deck was constructed illegally by the restaurant's previous owner. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the motion, and he commented that the applicant has encountered problems because he was not aware of the previous restaurant's owners non - compliance with the conditions. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3065 (Review) subject to the findings and conditions in * * * Exhibit "A" including the foregoing changes to t * Conditions No. 10, No. 15, and No. 16. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS• 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and with the Local Coastal Program and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3065 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. 4. That the installation of a barrier on the outdoor deck is necessary for the containment of noise and the delineation of "net public area" on the deck. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the plot plan and floor plan approved by the Planning Commission on November 10, -5- COMMISSIONERS ydG°�'�9a�99 qA 9��bt yy oy f N�Vt CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 RCIWALL INDEX 1983, except as noted below. 2. That all necessary building and electrical permits shall be obtained for all new construction. 3. That employees of the restaurant facility shall park in the Municipal parking lot at all times. 4. That the noise from the live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the structure. 5. That ten (10) in -lieu parking spaces shall be purchased from the City on an annual basis for the duration of the restaurant use and that the annual fee for said parking shall be in accordance with Section 12.44.125 of the Municipal Code. 6. That the boat docks shall remain available ate all times for patrons' use. 7. That a minimum of one parking space for each 40 sq.ft. of "net public area" shall be provided for the expanded restaurant use, excluding a credit of four parking spaces for the guest dock spaces. 8. That the valet parking service shall be in operation during all hours the restaurant is open. 9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas be. screened from Newport Boulevard, Newport Bay and adjoining properties. 10. That the use of the exterior deck shall cease at 12:00 midnight nightly. 11. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 12. That the existing drive apron be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk, and that a new 24 foot wide drive apron be constructed approximately 18 inches northerly of the existing drive apron per City Standard 166 -L, with the exact location to be approved by the Public Works Department. The construction of the new drive apron may require the relocation of an existing • fire hydrant; that the depressed section of brick located in the Newport Boulevard parkway be brought to grade; that the existing decorative posts along the southerly parking lot boundary be removed; and -6- COMMISSIONERS y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 RdWALL INDEX that all work be completed prior to issuance of any building permits or implementation of the subject use permit. 13. That the on -site vehicular circulation plan be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 14. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to 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. 15. That a sound attenuation wall enclosure shall be installed on the outdoor deck so as to contain on- site noise. A licensed engineer practicing in the area of acoustics shall certify that said barrier will contain noise such that restaurant generated noise will not exceed 55 dBA at the property lines on the deck. 16. That all new construction shall maintain a 6 foot setback from the northerly side property line. The glass wall shall be permitted to encroach to the bulkhead until a public access easement area parallel to the bay is required by the City, at which time the glass wall shall be relocated at least 2 feet back of the existing bulkhead at the applicant's expense. Prior to the exercising of the use permit, the applicant shall execute an agreement with the City providing that no vested rights shall be acquired to maintain the glass wall, or any portion of the glass wall. 17. That the "net public area" of the restaurant facility shall not exceed 1,173± sq.ft. inside the building, and 416 sq.ft. ± on the deck. 18. That all windows and doors (except when entering or leaving the restaurant facility) shall be closed by 11:00 p.m. daily. 19. That the parking lot shall be restriped to provide at least 26 parking spaces as previously required. 20. That handicapped parking shall be provided as required by Code, and that the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated -7- COMMISSIONERS y A� �0 �0 v CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX 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. 21. That a resubdivision be approved to combine the lots into one building site, and a parcel map be filed, prior to the issuance of building permits to enclose the deck if the cost of the glass enclosure on the deck exceeds $5,000.00. 22. That all conditions of approval of this use permit shall be implemented within 60 days from the effective date of this application unless other arrangements are.made with the Planning Department. 23. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits for the glass barrier. Use Permit No. 3311 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 UP3311 Request to establish a take -out Chinese restaurant with home delivery on property located on "Retail Commercial Site 1" in the Newport Place Planned Community. The Approved proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: Lot 1, Tract No. 7770, located at 1701 Corinthian Way, on the southeasterly corner of Corinthian Way and Scott Drive in the MacArthur Square commercial center located within the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Ming Chun Cha, Carson OWNER: Business Properties, Irvine Commissioner Merrill and James Hewicker; Planning Director, discussed the parking lot's poor condition. • Commissioner Winburn commented that Condition No. 4 states that the northerly portion of the parking lot _8_ COMMISSIONERS yq .off ��^ �� \6rlt w 9 0 4y Q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24. 1988 R ALL INDEX adjacent to the subject take -out restaurant shall be restriped. Mr. Hewicker stated that the area referred to in the condition abuts Corinthian Way, because that is where the largest portion of the take -out restaurant's patrons will be parking. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Mansour, representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Mansour stated that the applicant has read and concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and that he understands that he must comply with all of the conditions of the use permit. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard,. the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. Ayes * * * * * * 3311 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit Absent * "A ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, landscaping, and a portion of the required parking will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 4. That the Police Department has no objections with the proposed development. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3311 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 floor plan. -9- COMMISSIONERS 7y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX 2. That five (5) off - street parking spaces shall be provided for the take -out restaurant facility. 3. That all employees of the facility shall park on- site, and that the delivery truck shall be parked on -site. 4. That the northerly portion of the parking lot adjacent to the subject take -out restaurant shall be restriped with lines a minimum of four inches wide in accordance with the previously approved parking plans for the site. 5. That the development standards pertaining to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities, parking lot illumination, and a portion of the required parking spaces (16 spaces) shall be waived. 6. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 7. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the take -out restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved be the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 8. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Scott Drive, Corinthian Way and adjoining properties. 14. That the exterior walkway shall be kept clean and regularly maintained. Said walkway shall be swept, vacuumed, or washed in such a manner that any debris or wastewater does not enter the storm drain system or the bay. 11. That no seating other than a bench for waiting customers and no tables shall be provided in the facility unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 10- COMMISSIONERS �q2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 ROOMCALL INDEX 12. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided is such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 13. That a trash compactor be provided in the restaurant facility. 14. 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. 15. 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 3120 (Amended)(Public Hearine) Item No.3 UP3120(A) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the reconstruction and expansion of the Balboa Fun Zone, located on property in the C -1 District. The Approved proposed amendment includes a request to convert portions of an existing building which is currently designated for take -out restaurant and retail commercial uses into space for additional amusement rides and an arcade. Said amendment also includes: a request to allow the sub - leasing of excess on -site parking spaces, provided that all tenants and employees of the Fun Zone park on -site; and the deletion of Condition No. 40 which requires the applicant to deposit with the City of Newport Beach a $5,000.00 cash deposit which is required to insure the steam ,cleaning of public sidewalks and private on -site pedestrian walkways. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 82 -706 (Resubdivision No. 724), located at 600 Edgewater Place, on property bounded by East Bay Avenue, Washington Street, Palm • Street, and Newport Bay, in Central Balboa. -11- COMMISSIONERS yBG4C �9N�9�_�f 9 v� 9290 � �f 220 Amok 2 MINUTES March 24, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RAWALL INDEX ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Balboa Fun Zone, Ltd., Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bruce Wank, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wank stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B" to approve the new amusement rides and arcade, deny the request to sub -lease on -site parking, and to agree to Condition of Approval No. 4 so that he would defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless in conjunction with any personal injury or property damage out of failure to comply with conditions of approval of the use permit. Mr. Wank addressed the suggestion by the City Attorney's office to delete Condition No. 40 of the original Use Permit No. 3120, requiring a $5,000 cash deposit to insure the cleaning of public and private sidewalks within and adjacent to the Fun Zone project, and to add a condition that would substitute Condition No. 40: • "applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City and its officers and employees harmless, with respect to any personal injury or property damage alleged to arise out of the failure of permittee to comply with the terms and conditions of this use permit, including, but not limited to, the obligation of permittee to insure that public sidewalks around the property are regularly cleaned and kept free of debris, grease, and food products." Mr. Wank stated that the requested bumper cars for the Fun Zone would not be an intensification of use, there would be fewer employees on -site because the bumper car operators would also operate the merry -go -round and the ferris wheel, there would be fewer users than for a take -out restaurant or a retail use, less parking would be required, the bumper cars would maintain the historical character of the property, the bumper cars would help stabilize the Fun Zone, there would be less trash, and the bumper cars would not be a destination point as opposed to a franchised take -out restaurant. Mr. Wank stated that he concurs with the City Attorney's foregoing proposed language as Condition No. 4 subject to receiving clarification from the insurance carrier that the language as indicated is acceptable. -12- COMMISSIONERS o' �0 �0 W �� m 99'009 v y y f y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 RAWALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano regarding potential franchise take -out restaurants for the site instead of the proposed bumper cars, Mr. Wank replied that he had spoken to interested take -out restaurant operators. He commented that the proposed attractions would be better uses, because a take -out restaurant would be an intensification of the site and parking. Commissioner Di Sano stated his concerns regarding the waiting lines and the bumper cars, and he said that the bumper cars may attract teen - agers,. whereas the ferris wheel and merry -go -round attract a wide variety of age groups. Mr. Wank commented that the bumper cars would attract the same group of people as the ferris wheel. Chairman Pers6n stated that the bumper cars attract many age groups, and he commented on the Fun Zone's deterioration before the redevelopment of the area, and that the bumper cars would not have a dramatic effect on the area. Mr. Wank explained that a glass enclosed space is proposed for the waiting line. • Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support the proposed bumper cars for the Fun Zone. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Wank described from the plans on display, the proposed sites for the bumper cars, the dark ride, the arcade area, and the waiting line. Mr. Joe Tunstall, an operator in the Fun.Zone since .1951, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the safety precautions of the proposed dark ride, Mr. Tunstall replied that a locking lap bar will be installed that will automatically unlock when the car exits a ride, and there will be a high back on each car so the occupant will be unable to turn around. Mr. Tunstall referred to facilities in Southern California who have installed similar devices. In response to a question regarding the operating hours posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Tunstall replied that during the winter months the rides close at approximately 7:00 p.m. and during the busy summer months they have closed at 1:00 a.m.; however, the closing hour is regularly 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 midnight • when the boardwalk empties. Chairman Pers6n stated that a condition presently exists on the property which limits the operating hours to 12:00 midnight during the -13- COMMISSIONERS \XTI p�A - 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX week and 2:00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Tunstall replied that the present Fun Zone is family oriented, and that they have not had,any problems with teen - agers. He explained that one of the primary reasons that the original Fun Zone deteriorated is that the former property owner did not extend leases beyond one year and that the tenants wanted more than a one year commitment. Mr. Tunstall explained that there is a 13 year lease on the bumper cars with an option beyond that so as to justify the equipment. He compared the design of the proposed bumper cars with the original bumper cars, and he compared the original bumper car structure to the proposed enclosed facility. Mrs. Virginia Herberts, property owner adjacent to the Fun Zone area, and resident of the Balboa Peninsula, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Herberts stated that the public agreed to the new Fun Zone project because of the conditions that were placed on the original use permit, and the parking and the • cleanliness were very important to the public. She said that the $5,000 deposit required in Condition No. 40 was important even though the deposit was never received but the deposit could have been enforced; that she would oppose the bumper cars if the condition was not already included because the bumper cars would encourage teen- agers; and that the original conditions of approval are very important to keep because the public was included during the original public hearings. Chairman Pers6n pointed out that property owners within 300 feet were noticed regarding the subject public hearing. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the arcades, Mrs. Herberts replied that the area is being kept very clean and that the new Fun Zone complex has been a nice addition to the Balboa area. Chairman Pers6n agreed that the Fun Zone has proven to be a good neighbor, and even if they have not submitted the $5,000 deposit, the Planning Commission has had the ability to bring the use permit back to modify the conditions of approval including making sure that the area is kept clean. Mrs. Pat Harrison, resident of Balboa Peninsula for 40 years, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. • Harrison opposed the proposed bumper cars because they would be an added tourist attraction to the Fun Zone area; that the aesthetics of the Balboa Peninsula has -14- COMMISSIONERS _ q2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX changed from being a tourist area to a year around residential area; that there is too much automobile cruising on the Peninsula; and that the bumper cars would create more traffic because the bumper cars will attract different users than the ferric wheel and merry - go- round. Chairman Pers6n addressed the timing of the redevelopment of the Fun Zone parcel and the adjacent properties, the cruising, and the quality of visitors to the area. He commented that the cruising is a Police Department problem. Mrs.. Harrison commented that Edgewater Place has been severely affected by the redevelopment in the area. Chairman Pers6n pointed out that the Balboa Peninsula will always attract tourists to the area just because the beach is a destination point. Dr. Adler, an arcade and ride attraction owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that cruisers do not get out of their automobiles, the Fun Zone has been attracting more families, the merry -go -round attracts a larger percentage of adults than children, the ferris wheel attracts a large percentage of • families, that the bumper cars will consist of families with small children, that the teen -agers will be attracted to the Fun Zone but that gives them something to do instead of wandering on the streets, and that during the past two years since the Fun Zone has reopened there have not been any problems because they keep tight restrictions on the area. Commissioner Debay stated that the Fun Zone does give the teen -agers something to do, but it is located in an area that the traffic is confined to one boulevard. Mrs. Herberts reappeared before the Planning Commission to state that the Planning Commission should have taken the traffic circulation into consideration when they approved the new development. Mr. Hewicker stated that the subject tenant space was originally designated for a take -out restaurant and retail uses, and the proposed use would be less intensification of the site. Commissioner Winburn stated that the Planning Commission requested a condition in the original use permit so the Commission would be able to keep close watch of the changeover in the area, and the parking requirements. . There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. -15- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX In response to concerns posed by Commissioner Debay regarding parking, Mr. Hewicker replied that the proposed use would require fewer parking.spaces than the number of parking spaces required by the, previous tenants. He commented that the bumper ride would compliment the ferris wheel and .merry -go -round and retain the flavor of the original Fun Zone. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3120 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Di Sano stated that he emphatically opposes the motion, and he addressed the staff report which states that the added attractions should be given every opportunity to succeed because a restaurant may not succeed on the site. He commented that the proposed attractions would encourage a Disneyland -type of environment and poor traffic circulation. Commissioner Di Sano supported Exhibit "C ", findings for denial, and he referred to Finding No. 1 which states "that the establishment of additional amusement rides within the Fun Zone Development will result in a further intensification of use.." He commented that the restaurant was not given an opportunity to succeed; that the Balboa Peninsula cannot accommodate the same kind of rides that were on the site previously; that the Planning Commission wanted to retain the merry -go -round that would keep the flavor of the original Fun Zone but they did not want the identical Fun Zone;. the area's residents did not want the same Fun Zone because the area could not tolerate the original Fun Zone. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff has been directed to give the Planning Commission the type of findings needed to approve, deny, or modify a particular project, and the ultimate decision is up to the Planning Commission. Substitute Substitute motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3120 Motion * (Amended) subject to the findings in Exhibit "C ". Commissioner Winburn explained that the proposed attractions would require fewer employees than the previous tenants, that the Planning Commission originally did not want a large parking structure and that they supported a low -rise building in keeping with the original Fun Zone, that the Planning Commission took • the applicant's limited financial conditions under consideration, all of the interested parties wanted to continue the ambience of the original Fun Zone, and that the public patronizing the area's restaurants now ride -16- COMMISSIONERS yq 4 9��9 NO�m Ask 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24. 1988 RdWALL INDEX the attractions which they did not do when the Fun Zone was deteriorating. Chairman Person stated that when the redevelopment of the Fun Zone was originally considered, the project was proposed to be 50,000 square feet; however, the project was ultimately reduced to about 20,000 square feet. Chairman Person addressed the phases that the Fun Zone encountered during the planning and public hearing process, wherein the Planning Commission finally approved a project that only increased the size of the buildings about ten percent over the original Fun Zone, and then the Planning Commission requested that the applicants provide underground parking for the employees. He commented that the proposed rides would not be a detriment to the property or to the area, and the Planning Commission has the ability to call up the use permit if there would be a problem in the future. Chairman Pers6n concluded that the applicant has a reasonable right to use the property, and he would not support the substitute motion. Commissioner Pomeroy reflected on his personal experience which has been that generations of families have been attending the Fun Zone, that Balboa is a resort area, and that he will not support the substitute motion. Ayes * * Substitute motion was voted on to deny Use Permit No. Noes 3120 (Amended) subject to the findings in Exhibit "C ". Absent * MOTION DENIED. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3120 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B" that would approve the amusement rides and Ayes * * * * * arcade, but would deny the request to sub -lease on -site Noes * parking. MOTION CARRIED. Absent Findines: 1. That the proposed uses are consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the proposed amusement rides and arcade represent a reduction in the number employees within the Fun Zone project. -17- COMMISSIONERS A0 ;0fQO. ate CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 ROWALL INDEX 3. The project will not have a significant environmental impact. 4. That the proposed sub - leasing of excess employee parking spaces during certain times of the.year is not workable inasmuch as the fluctuation of the number of employees within the project would impose an unreasonable enforcement problem for the City. 5. That the requirement to provide a $5,000 cash deposit, so as to insure the cleaning of public and private sidewalks within and adjacent to the Fun Zone project, is unnecessary inasmuch as the applicant has agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Newport Beach, with respect to any personal injury or property damage resulting from his failure to comply with the requirements of this use permit. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3120 (Amended) will not, .under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, • comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the installation of the proposed amusement rides and arcade shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3120 shall be fulfilled unless otherwise provided below. 3. That Condition No. 40 of the originally approved Use Permit No. 3120, which requires the applicant to provide a $5,000 cash deposit so as to insure the cleaning of public and private sidewalks within and adjacent to the Fun Zone project, is hereby deleted. 4. That the permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City and its officers and employees harmless, with respect to any personal injury or property damage alleged to arise out of the failure of the permittee to comply with the terms and -18- COMMISSIONERS xNOy\1rW:r0\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 RCIWALL INDEX conditions of this use permit, including, but not limited to, the obligation of permittee to insure that public sidewalks around the property are regularly cleaned and kept free of debris, grease, and food products. 5. That all of the on -site parking spaces shall be for the exclusive use of the employees and tenants of the Balboa Fun Zone Development and that the applicant shall not be permitted to sub -lease any portion of said parking to any other business or individual outside of the Fun Zone Development. 6. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits for the installation or operation of the proposed amusement rides and arcade. 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 Use Permit, 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 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning .Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Pomeroy was excused from the Planning Commission meeting at this time. 19 COMMISSIONERS � 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24. 1988 R ALL INDEX A. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 12 (Continued Item No.4 Public Hearin Request to amend the Local Coastal Program, Land Use LCP 12 Plan so as to redesignate the subject property from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Low 8861 Density Residential ". Approved AND B Resubdivision No. 861 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide property located in the R -1 -B District so as to establish a parcel of land for single family residential purposes. The proposal also includes a request to approve a proposed grading plan of the site so as to establish grade for the purpose of measuring building height; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Block 96, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3841 Ocean Birch Drive, on the southerly side of Ocean . Birch Drive between the southerly terminus of Spyglass Hill Road and Sea Bell Circle, in the Spyglass Ridge residential area. ZONE: R -1 -B APPLICANT: James C. Manning, Newport Beach . OWNER The Irvine Company, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff has received copies of letters from the applicant, James Manning, and the Spyglass Ridge Community Association, presenting their current positions regarding the proposed project. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. James Manning appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Manning referred to his letter dated March 23, 1988, and he stated that he has agreed with the Community Association on the following items: the rough graded pad elevation would be reduced from 420 feet mean sea level (MSL) to 416 feet (MSL), however he would prefer 417 feet (MSL); the house size would not exceed 6,300 square feet of living space initially but he may wish an expansion in the future; and they would -20- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX not build any walls within 6 feet of the front property line. Mr. Manning stated that he was unable to come to a compromise with said Association regarding the height of the building and the height of the pad. He explained that the height of the building would be within the requirements of the City's Zoning Code which is 29 feet at the ridge line, and 24 feet, measured at the midline of any pitched roof plane. He stated that said Association has requested that the height of the building not exceed 26 feet, which would be less than the City's.requirements. In reference to the grade of the pad of either 416 feet (MSL) or 417 feet (MSL), Mr. Manning explained that the grade of the curb, which was surveyed by a licensed surveyor, goes from 414 feet (MSL) at the easterly side of the subject property to 411 feet (MSL) at the westerly side of site, and that the neighbor's property to the west of the subject property goes from 411 feet (MSL) to 407 feet (MSL), measured from the top of the • curb. Mr. Manning explained that if the property is 200 feet deep, anything less than 416 feet (MSL) would be inadequate for drainage purposes. Mr. Manning presented a slide show emphasizing the pad elevations of the street and adjacent properties; the height of the residential structures and the terraced lots; remodelled dwellings in the neighborhood; and the proposed project's site plan. Mr. Manning stated that The Irvine Company will be reviewing the architectural plans for the proposed project and one of the primary concerns by their architectural staff will be that the project is harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Manning referred to the petition signed by the neighbors prior to the February 18, 1988, Planning Commission meeting that requested no project be developed on the subject property, and that makes him apprehensive to give architectural control to the neighbors. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Manning replied that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", that he will not compromise on the building height, and that he prefers a grade pad of 417 feet (MSL). In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn -21- COMMISSIONERS 9 \9 .may Q��f�y0 - iy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX regarding how high the building would be from curb, Mr. Manning replied that if the building's elevation would be 416 feet (MSL) then it would be approximately 2 feet, and if the building pad would be 417 feet (MSL) it would be 3 feet at the easterly end of the site and at the westerly end of the property it would be 6 feet. Mr. Manning stated that his pad would be 3 feet to 4 feet higher than the adjacent property, and inasmuch as all of the parcels are terraced, his property would be the highest point in the neighborhood. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the proposed driveway, Mr. Manning described from the site plan, how the driveway shown on the easterly end of the property will be moved westerly towards the middle of the lot. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Manning discussed the driveway's access and grade. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano regarding the pad, Mr. Manning explained that a primary reason that he would prefer 417 feet (MSL) is that if the dwelling adjacent to his property were elevated to a • second story, the structure would interrupt his view. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n regarding one foot above curb, Mr. Manning explained that the drainage system would be inadequate, and unusual for a subdivision. Chairman Pers6n stated that Condition No. 19 in Exhibit "A" recommends the approval of a Site Plan Review for any residential on the parcel development. Commissioner Merrill stated that the height of the lot needs to be established now. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Manning discussed the Spyglass Ridge Community Association's CC&R's regarding the height of the trees, and Mr. Manning stated that he was advised by the residents that the trees must be kept to the roof line so the trees do not block views. Mr. Manning stated that he would join the Association, but that he would be unwilling to relinquish architectural control. Mr. John Giovannone, President of the Spyglass Ridge Community Association; appeared before the Planning • Commission. He referred to his letter dated March 22, 1988. He stated that the Association's attempt to work out differences with the applicant was not successful. He stated that the Association believed that the issue 22 COMMISSIONERS 4�G� \OLC49 y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 RdWALL INDEX regarding the height of the pad had been resolved at 416 feet (MSL), and not 417 feet (MSL) as the applicant is requesting. Mr. Giovannone stated that the two remaining issues are the building height and the submission of the plans to the Association for review and approval. Mr. Giovannone explained that the Association's request to submit plans for review, and joining the Association, would be contingent upon the Association's approval of the plans. He stated that if there would be any problems between the two parties, that the plans could be submitted to a mutual arbitrator. Mr. Giovannone stated that the concerns by the Association are that the proposed dwelling would be a towering structure in bulk and in size that would be totally out of harmony with the neighborhood. He said that the two parties have agreed upon the tile roof, and that the structure would not exceed 6,300 square feet of living space. Mr. Giovannone requested that the Planning Commission impose conditions regarding the height limit and require the submission of plans to the Association in advance so they could work out their problems, or he requested that the Planning Commission continue the item so the two • parties could work out their differences. Chairman Person pointed out that Condition No. 19 states "that development of the new lot shall be subject to a Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission. ", which gives the Planning Commission an opportunity to review the project once it is ready to be developed. Mr. Giovannone replied that the Association is concerned with the style of architecture, color, and materials of the residence so it would be consistent with the neighborhood. He stated that the Association would expedite the review process with the applicant so they would not be delayed. James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the Zoning Code and read the requirements of a Site Plan Review. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker replied that the Association would be encouraged to participate in the Site Plan Review process. Commissioner Winburn stated that because the applicant will be residing in the proposed dwelling, he would not want to do anything detrimental to the neighborhood. Commissioner Debay questioned the amount of authority that the Association has concerning the lot inasmuch as the lot is not within the Spyglass Ridge community. Assistant City Attorney, Carol Korade, referred to the -23- COMMISSIONERS �0 �0 yy y cr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX staff report which states that the Planning Commission is required to make any one of the findings (a) through (g) if they want to deny a project, that the conditions are limited to those general findings, and the Planning Commission is reaching a sensitive area in requiring Condition No. 21 regarding annexing the subject property into the Spyglass Ridge Community Association. She commented that the applicant has agreed to join the Association; however, if the applicant would not agree to join the Association prior to the issuance of a building permit, it would be difficult for the Planning Commission to make that a condition of the subject resubdivision. She said that the Planning Commission must tie all of the conditions into said findings in the staff report. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Korade explained that the Site Plan Review addresses issues such as physical suitability, design, etc., that could be fit in through the findings (a) through (g). Chairman Pers6n asked if the Planning Commission could impose conditions during the Site Plan Review process, and Ms. Korade replied that general conditions could be imposed inasmuch as the application • would contain broader categories. Chairman Pers6n stated that inasmuch as the applicant has agreed with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", is he bound to the said findings and conditions? Ms. Korade replied to the affirmative. Mrs. Julie Franke, resident of Spyglass Ridge, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that the 40 dwellings within Spyglass Ridge are within a Planned Community, that the structures were planned collectively, that each residence is a member of said Association, and that they all adhere to the Association's CC&R's. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mrs. Franke replied that the homes that were shown in the foregoing slides had to be approved by the Association before the structures could be remodeled. Mrs. Helen Dahn, 3850 Ocean Birch Drive, resident immediately across the street from the proposed structure, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Dahn stated that her family has resided in the neighborhood for 9 years; that their view consists of the hillside and the ocean from the second story of their house and both would be blocked if the proposed • dwelling is constructed; that her children's recreational area would be removed; that Spyglass Park is too far for her children to go alone inasmuch as they -24- COMMISSIONERS y yfst 9y MINUTES March 24, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R ALL INDEX would have to cross San Joaquin Hills Road; and the curve on Ocean Birch Drive and the road intersection would become increasingly dangerous because of the additional traffic. Mrs. Dahn stated that the said Association is considering constructing a masonry wall around the community when San Joaquin Hills Road is extended, and she stated that she has concerns how the masonry wall could be constructed if the applicant does not become a member of the Association. Discussion ensued regarding the potential masonry wall, and how the wall would affect the applicant and the residents. Chairman Person stated that the Planning Commission protects public views from public places; however, it avoids protecting someone's private view from private property. Mrs. Dahn stated that when they purchased the property it was their understanding that the subject parcel would remain open space. Commissioner Debay stated that her contact with The Irvine Company had informed her otherwise, and Mrs. Dahn replied that a real estate agent had informed them of the open space area. Mrs. • Dahn requested that the applicant would lower the structure's height, and Commissioner Debay replied that the dirt mound currently on the parcel has a pad height of 430 feet, higher than the pad of the proposed structure. Dr. Donald Turner, 3839 Ocean Birch Drive, appeared . before the Planning Commission as the adjacent neighbor to the proposed site, a resident of the area for 16 years, and a member of the Association's Board of Directors. He stated that he contacted The Irvine Company on three different occasions to purchase the property and on each occasion he was informed that the property would not be developed because it was deemed unstable according to a geologic survey taken in the early 1970's.. He stated that the residents' concerns consist of the applicant's request to construct the building on a 417 feet (MSL) pad; the bulk of the building; that if two dwellings had been proposed for the site, the residents would not have been as concerned because the two structures would have been more harmonious in the community; that the 6,300 square foot structure is twice as large as any other structure in the tract; that the primary concerns are the bulk and height of the project; that the applicant could join the • Association concurrently with the Association's review of the architectural plans; that the Association would be reasonable inasmuch as the residents have come to 25- COMMISSIONERS y�G ya 9y'ao v yy pZ fC � p � 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 RdWALL INDEX realize that the parcel will be developed but that they only want to be assured that the project is harmonious with the neighborhood. Mr. Dick Sorenson, 1621 Harbor Crest Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sorenson referred to Condition No. 22 regarding the approval by the Coastal Commission, and Mr. Hewicker replied that the Coastal Commission will consider the proposed project after the applicant has received discretionary approval from the City. Mr. Sorenson stated that the Association is considering a guard gate inasmuch as there will be heavy traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road if the street is extended and he was concerned that the applicant may not be able to participate if he were not a member of the Association. Commissioner Debay pointed out that a guard gate would necessitate the change -over from a public street to a private street, and Mr. Sorenson replied that the residents are aware of the condition. Mr. Manning reappeared before the Planning Commission in rebuttal to the foregoing testimony. He stated that the • largest house currently in the community is 4,000 square feet, that the Coastal Commission will review the application, and that he would be willing to cooperate with the Association if they wanted to install a guard gate. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Merrill addressed the concerns of the community regarding the subject resubdivision and he presented the following facts inasmuch as he had been involved with the planning of the Spyglass Hill and Harbor View areas, applicable CC&R's, and architecture. He stated that The Irvine Company's generic CC&R's requested that structures be architecturally harmonious with adjacent structures relating to elevation. Commissioner Merrill explained that the subject property consisted of two lots that were on the tentative tract map; however, as explained to him by a principal of the Lusk Company, the lots were not developed because of the geologic soils condition. He stated that at the time it was not economically feasible to correct the two lots in the context of the proposed sales prices that the units were going to be sold for in the area. Commissioner Merrill stated that there was sensitivity on the part of The Irvine Company about encroaching into the area 26 COMMISSIONERS yA .off sj0 0 NO,m m 99 .c99 G9y� Noy9�Cy� <. Ashk y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 ROWALL INDEX crossing over from the City into the County. In response to a question regarding if the applicant. would be required to apply for a permit from the County, Mr. Hewicker replied that the County will review the plans. Commissioner Merrill stated that the applicant has one large parcel so as to construct a large dwelling, and the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review the proposed plans during the Site Plan Review process. He stated that he has a concern regarding access into Buck Cully and because San Joaquin Hills Road will be extended, the public will have a difficult time entering the Buck Cully. In reference to the subject project, Commissioner Merrill stated that he would like to see the structure built as low as possible, he described how he would like to see the driveway constructed, and he addressed the height of the pad in relationship to the street. Mr. Hewicker referred to the access to Buck Cully and that the property served as an extension of San Joaquin Hills Road and was so designated on the City's Master Plan as a road (Canyon Crest) going south towards the ocean. He stated that the road is no longer designated on the City or County Master Plans. Motion * Motion was made to approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 12 and Resubdivision No. 861 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Discussion ensued regarding an additional condition concerning guard gates inasmuch as the applicant stated that he would be willing to participate in the installation of same. However, it was determined that said condition would not be necessary inasmuch as the subject property would become a part of the Spyglass Ridge Community Association. Commissioner Winburn requested an amendment to Condition No. 20 stating "that the height of the building pad shall not exceed 416 feet above Mean Sea Level. ". She Amendment * referred to the applicant's letter that stated that he and the Association had come to an agreement of 416 feet (MSL). The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. Chairman Pers6n stated that he would support the motion based upon the agreement between the two parties, and that further differences can be resolved when the • Planning Commission hears the Site Plan Review. Motion voted on to approve Local Coastal Program _27_ COMMISSIONERS G9y9 � Q� �y0 _ z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX Amendment No. 12 and Resubdivision No. 861, and Environmental Document, subject to the findings and Ayes * * * * * conditions in Exhibit "A ", including foregoing amended Absent x x Condition No. 20. 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. Local Program Amendment No. 12: Approve the Local Coastal Program Amendment, subject to the following findings: FINDINGS: 1. That this amendment is consistent with the stated goals and policies of the California Coastal Act, the Newport Beach General Plan, and the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 2. That a Negative Declaration has been prepared and that the proposed project, as conditioned, will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the approval of this amendment to the Local Coastal Program will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. -28_ COMMISSIONERS yr y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX C. Resubdivision No. 861: Approve the Resubdivision subject to the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision 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 a Negative Declaration has been prepared and that the proposed project, as conditioned , will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 2. Thaf' thg applicant shall obtain an easement providing for placement of fill on the adjacent property, unless lot iAnes are adjusted to include the fill area on the lot. `Sai<L easement shall - require the applicant or his successors 4nkAAitrerest to maintain the slope. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. 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 or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. • 5. That the location of the new driveway for the subject site be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any grading permits. -29 COMMISSIONERS � ��AA99� 0 G �' A��y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX 6. That the intersection of the street and drive be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The sight distance requirements may be approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 7. That a sidewalk be extended along the full frontage of the Ocean Birch Drive frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 8. That the Spyglass Hills Road street right -of -way be abandoned by the City under the City's abandonment procedure prior to recordation of the subject parcel map. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 10. That development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 11. 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 investigations 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. 12. 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. 13. That the grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to • minimize impact of haul operations. -30- COMMISSIONERS 92��yff�� q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES . March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX 14. That an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department; a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 15. That the velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 16. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty (30) days after grading, or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 17. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the engineer stating . that, in his opinion, this requirement has been • met. 18. That the applicant shall record a covenant providing for the preservation of public views across the easterly 55± feet of the site. No construction within this area shall exceed top of curb along Ocean Birch Drive, or permitted building or fence heights in the R -1 -B District, whichever is more restrictive. 19. That development of the new lot shall be subject to a Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission. 20. That the height of the building pad shall not exceed 416 feet above Mean Sea Level. 21. That within 90 days of the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit for the approval of the City Attorney and the Planning Director a document which shall provide for the annexation of the subject property into the Spyglass Ridge Community Association and shall provide for equal responsibility and representation of the property owner in the Association with other homeowners in the Association. The subdivider shall, in good faith, diligently pursue the annexation on reasonable terms mutually acceptable to both the subdivider and the Spyglass Ridge Community Association. However, failure of said -31- COMMISSIONERS 9y9 o 9J, _ l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1988 R ALL INDEX Association to accept any of the proposals noted above shall not bind the subdivider to further negotiations. 22. That this resubdivision shall be approved by the Coastal Commission. 23. 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. Amendment No. 660 (Public Hearine) Item No.5 Request to consider an amendment to Title 120 of the A660 Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to permit the Resolution installation of boat cranes on property with marine - No. 1176 oriented uses in excess of permitted height limits without the requirement of securing a use permit or a Approved variance; and the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and because there was no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve the related Ayes * * * * Environmental Document and Amendment No. 660 (Resolution Absent * * No. 1176) subject to the findings in Exhibit "A ". 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. -32- COMMISSIONERS �0 Z0 �w °gym ZZ9 oZ ff �� vy MINUTES March 24, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RaVALL INDEX B. Amendment No 660: Approve Amendment No. 660 amending Title 20 of the Municipal Code so as to establish provisions for the height and installation of boat cranes in conjunction with approved marine- oriented uses; and recommend to the City Council approval of said amendment. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Discussion Items Joint Cily Council /Planning Commission Meeting No. 1 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach PC /CC Meeting. The Planning Commission discussed issues that could be presented at the Joint meeting. No action was taken. No. 2 Discussion of Wind Signs Wind • Signs INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach This item was removed from calendar by the Planning Commission. * * t ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business' Motion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Chairman Person Ayes * * * * * and Commissioner Di Sano from the April 7, 1988, Person Absent * * Planning Commission meeting, and Commissioner Di Sano DiSano was also excused from the April 28, 1988, Planning excused Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 10:07 p.m. Adjournment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -33-