HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/1982COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
- PLACE: City Council Chambers
i TIME: 7:30 p.m. -
m 5 DATE: April 8, 1982
W ro
City of Newport Beach
C
tWl ALI INDEX
X'X IX 14 X' XI XI All Present.
� • x
EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT:
James D. Hewicker, Planning Director
Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney _
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator
Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator
Donald Webb, City Engineer
Pamela Woods, Secretary
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of March 18, 1982
Motion x Motion was made for approval of the Minutes of March
All Ayes X X. X X X X' X 18, 1982, as written, which MOTION CARRIED.
Planning Director Hewicker suggested that Items No. 3
and 4 - Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 2066, be
continued so that proper notice can be given to all
property owners within 300 feet of the property,
including owners and residents of the Towers.
Motion x I Motion was made to continue the Traffic Study and Use
A11 Ayes X X x X X X X Permit No. 2066 to the Planning Commission Meeting of
May 6,- 1982, which MOTION CARRIED.
Chairman McLaughlin referred to Items No. 8 and 9 - Use
Permit No. 2074 , and Use Permit No. 2075, relating to
electronic game centers, and suggested that these items
be continued until such time as the City Council has
considered the proposed Skill Games Ordinance.
-1-
DMMISSIONERS
April 8, 1982
F11-1[ City. of Newport Beach
MINUTES
1MLL CALL X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek,
Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that
the Commission has the right to continue these items
for a reasonable period of time to allow. the City
Council to review and take action on the proposed
ordinance.
Motion X Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 2074 and Use
All Ayes X X X X X Permit No. 2075 to the Planning Commission Meeting of
May 20, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED..
Request to amend Chapter 20:73, Residential Condominium
Projects, of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
�. Planning Director Hewicker presented background
information on this item. He also discussed the
memorandum dated April 2, 1982; from the Building
Director, Mr. Raimar Schuller, which outlined the
typical requirements for the inspection of a converted
unit.
Planning Director Hewicker referred to the additional
sheet relating to Section 20.73.019, the Physical
Elements Report. In response to a question posed by
Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated
that staff is suggesting that the physical elements
report be added, to make it clear that such a. report
shall be done. He also stated that the suggested
criteria for the Planning Commission or City Council
review is included in the additional sheet as Section
20.72.016.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen,
Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Planning.
Commission and City Council will have discretionary
.powers over the approval of a requested use permit for
a condominium conversion.
• IIIIIIII
r1d
rf.1
April 8, 1952
X
e m S m
x w. 3 City. of Newport Beach
Commissioner Beek stated that since the total number of
conversions shall not exceed five percent of the City's
total stock of duplex to fourplex units in a given
calendar year, he suggested that further criteria
should be added which would aid the Commission in
determining which units should be converted. He
suggested that the additional criteria should include
the character of the neighborhood, size of the lot and
size of the unit.
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Ms. Deborah Holly, resident of 213 30th Street and
student representative from the University of
California at Irvine, stated that the proposed
ordinance will significantly reduce the rental housing
stock in Newport Beach..
Mr. Dick Hogan, representing Properties West, referred
to Section 20.73.016 which lists the criteria for
Planning Commission or City Council review and stated
. that Item Nos. 4) Proximity to public schools, parks
and recreation areas, neighborhood shopping centers,
and public transit; and 5) Provision of on -site
amenities such as swimming pools, spas, balconies,
decks, and open space, are not appropriate criteria as
a justification for denying. a conversion. otherwise,
he stated that they are in support of the proposed
ordinance.
Mr. Barnett Larks, resident of 1901 Beryl Lane, and
Vice - President of Friends of Oasis Senior Citizen
Center, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Larks
stated that he concurs with Mr. Hogan in that Item Nos.
4 and 5 would apply to a rental or an ownership unit
and therefore would not be appropriate criteria to
include.
Mr. Larks stated that there is no evidence to indicate
that the conversion of these units will make them
affordable and available to the first time home buyers.
He again expressed his concern that additional rental'
units must be made available to the displaced renters.
He stated that the senior citizens would have no
objections to the 'proposed ordinance if these
additional rental units were to be produced and made
available.
_3-
i
MINUTES
INDEX
I ion
Pes
Noes
April 8, 1982
W
a m m N 3 City of Newport Beach
Commissioner Balalis stated that the Planning
Commission will be discussing the Housing Element
Implementation - Density Increases on May 6, 1982 at
2:00 p.m. and suggested that Mr. Larks attend.
Commissioner Beek referred to Page 4 of the proposed
ordinance and suggested that the word "more ",be added
to the first paragraph. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City
Attorney, suggested that the paragraph read, "if such
modification or waiver will have no greater adverse
impact on adjacent properties or structures than strict
compliance with.these..standards "..
Commissioner Beek then referred to Page.3, paragraph B)
of Section 20.73.025 and stated that the 5,000 square
foot requirement should be included in the ordinance.
He stated that deletion of this requirement would allow
sub- standard units to occur and would drastically alter
the character of the City.
JXJJJ Motion was made. to include the 5,000 square foot
X requirement in paragraph B) of Section 20.73.025, which
X ..X.X MOTION FAILED.
V I I I In response to a question posed by Commissioner
I i Balalis, Planning Director explained the past and
present parking requirements for a duplex unit.
Commissioner Balalis asked if the converted units will
have to comply with the open space option. Planning
Director Hewicker stated that the ordinance requires
that the converted units comply with the zoning
regulations as they exist today, unless the Planning
Commission, with a four- fifths vote, waives the. open
space requirement.
Commissioner Balalis referred to Section 20.73.019,
Physical Elements Report, and stated that it will be
difficult to determine the condition of the sewer
system and its remaining useful life. He.also stated
that there will probably not be a rush of conversion
applications, because he estimated that over one -half
of the existing units will not be able to meet the
criteria for a conversion.
• IIIIIIII
MINUTES
INDEX
CALL
Motion
Ayes
Abstain
Motion
f m 6 m
M
Substitute
on X
s I xxx
*I s IX
Motion
Ayes
Noes
0V
X
April 8, 1982
of Newoort Beach
Motion was made to include Section 20.73.019, Physical
Elements Report, as indicated in the additional sheet,
which MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Allen referred to Section 20.73.015,
relating to. Planning Commission or City Council review
and stated that these criteria will be utilized in
evaluating the conversion projects. She stated that
Item Nos. 4 and 5 should be included in the ordinance,
because the Commission should have the opportunity to
consider these criteria.
Motion was made to include Section 20.73.016, Planning
Commission.or City Council Review, including Item Nos.
4 and.5 as indicated in the additional sheet.
Substitute Motion was made to include - Section
20.72.016, Planning Commission or City Council Review,
Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 only, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION
CARRIED.
Commissioner Allen moved for an additional clause
within the ordinance which would apply only to
condominium conversions involving additions of square
footage to the existing living .space, not to include
the parking. If the condominium conversion project
includes additions of square footage in existing living
space, the total size of the project shall be limited
to 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot, or the size
of the building presently, if it is more than 1.5 times
the buildable area.
Commissioner King stated that each conversion project
should be considered on its own merits, and therefore
he could not support the additional clause as suggested
by Commissioner Allen. .Commissioner Balalis concurred
with Commissioner King.
Motion by Commissioner Allen as stated above, was now
voted on, which MOTION FAILED. - -
-5-
MINUTES
INDEX
e x
s r �
W
�m :m
April 8, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
Motion X Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1078, approving RESOLUTION
Ayes X X X X X Amendment No. 568, as revised, which MOTION CARRIED. NO..1078
Noes X X (See attached Exhibit "A" for the text of the approved
Chapter 20.73 for Residential Condominium Projects).
Request to permit the construction -of a single family
residential dwelling on property located in the C -1 -H
District where a portion of the development exceeds the
basic height .limit..within the 26/35 Foot Height
Limitation District, and the acceptance ..of an
environmental document.
LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 59 -6
(Resubdivision No. 418), located at 1900
West Coast Highway, on the northerly
side of West Coast Highway, across from
• the Balboa Bay Club.
ZONE: C -1 -H
APPLICANT. Ficker & Ruffing Architects, Newport
Beach .
OWNER: Tract 1210, Ltd., Corona del Mar
Ll
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. William P. Ficker, architect for the proposed
project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Picker
distributed to the Commission, his letter dated April
8, 1982, which addressed various aspects of. the
proposed project.
Mr. Ficker presented aerial photographs and colored
drawings which depicted the site and the surrounding
existing land uses. He stated that. the proposal
provides for dramatic under - development to the
property, as well as a dramatic reduction in the
traffic that would be generated by any other
development He also stated that the proposal is far
more compatible with the adjacent park and residential
property.
April 8, 1982
3
� m m
m m w City of Newport Beach
Mr. Ficker stated that this piece of property is most
unique in its shape and location. He stated that the
proposal will be an extremely compatible development
with the surrounding area and all of the neighboring
properties. He stated that it will also provide an
opportunity for urban living, while generously under -
developing the property.
Mr. .Ficker referred to Exhibit "B ", Condition of
Approval No. 6, and stated that this is an extensive
condition which would be more appropriate at the time
of the ultimate widening of West Coast Highway.
Commissioner Balalis asked what size of building the
applicant could build without obtaining discretionary
approval from the Planning Commission. Mr. Ficker
stated that a building of approximately 18,000 to
20,000 square feet could be built upon the site.
Commissioner Allen stated that the Initial Study
• indicates that there will be no view blockage of the
water from the existing residences and the park site.
She then stated that she would like to be assured that
this information is correct. Mr. Ficker stated that
the lowest portion of the park may experience some view
obstruction. He stated that they would be willing to
move the glass sound screen back into the building
envelope. He stated that the glass sound screen is the
only portion of the project which exceeds the height
limit.
Mr. Dick Stevens, the property owner, stated that he
has owned this property since 1968. He expressed his
concern with the 12 -foot right -of -way dedication and
stated that this is a major economic consideration. He
stated that he is agreeable in grading the front of the
property for the ultimate' widening of West Coast
Highway, but suggested that the requirements of the
retaining wall and sidewalk be deleted. He stated that
they have designed a landscaping plan which will blend
well with the bluff and the surrounding environment.
Mr. Stevens referred to Exhibit "B ", Condition of
Approval No. 5, and stated that he would be willing to
convey his interest in the 12 foot right -of -way of West
Coast Highway to be dedicated to the City, but cannot
convey the interest of the lessees on the property.
-7-
MINUTES
INDEX
•
lJ
-- April 8, 1982
n71
r c
m � W
City of Newport Beach
c n m w
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Balalis, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that the
applicant is being required to grade the front portion
of the property and construct the retaining wall
because the structure will be located within four feet
of the new right -of -way line and the City does not want
to assume the responsibility and liability of grading
and excavating the widened West Coast Highway to within
four.feet of the structure.
Mr. Stevens stated that he would be agreeable to
granting a 15 -foot wide construction easement. He also
stated that he would be willing to post a bond in order
to provide for this easement and hold the City
harmless. Mr. Webb stated that such an agreement would
be adequate.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek,
Mr. Ficker explained the elevations of the proposed
project. Mr. Ficker also stated that because the
applicant will be dedicating the front 12 feet of .the
property to the City, the structure had to be stepped
further up into the bluff.
Mr. .Ron Rebal, resident of 1821 Kings Road, the
property immediately above the proposed project,
expressed his concern with the view obstruction of the
proposed project in relationship to his residence. He
also expressed his concern with the lifestyle of a
7,000 square foot house that contains no front, side or
backyards. He stated that the entire outside activity
of the proposed project will take place on the roof.
Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Rebal if he is concerned
with the view of the water or with the view of the
proposed rooftop. Mr. Rebal stated that he is
concerned with both of the views. He urged that these
view obstructions be thoroughly evaluated before
further action is taken.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek,
Mr. Rebal stated that he would prefer a residential use
of this type at this location, rather than a commercial
use.
CM
MINUTES
INDEX
-- - - -
- April 8, 1982
� r �
City. of Newport Beach
Mr. Thomas O'Keefe, attorney representing Beverly Ray
of Beverly and Partner, appeared before the Commission.
Mr. O'Keefe referred to Ms. Ray's letter dated March
12, 1982, and stated that there has been no division of
land between the property in question and the property
located at 1800 W. Coast Highway in which Ms. Ray has.a
long -term lease. Therefore, he stated that the
applicant has no right to build upon the property,
until his client's lease has terminated, which is not
until 1987.
Mr.- O'Keefe expressed their concerns relating. to the
impacts on the parking and the surrounding land uses.
He stated that the proposed application will not be
architecturally compatible with the area and will
be an intrusion into the coastal bluff. He stated that
the application violates the 65 CNEL provision. He
also stated that the view from the park site will be
impacted by this proposal.
• 1,11111 In response to a question posed by Chairman McLaughlin,
Mr. Bob Burnham,. Assistant City Attorney, stated that
this application does not constitute a subdivision
of.these parcels. Mr. Burnham also stated that he has
not had an opportunity to review the lease at length.
Mr. James Sawyer, resident of 306 Snug Harbor Road and
Director of the Cliff Haven Community Association,
appeared before the Commission. Mr. Sawyer referred to
their letter of opposition dated March 17, 1982. He
expressed their concerns relating to the height of the
proposed structure, the excavation of the cliff area,
and the inconsistency of the proposed structure to the
surrounding area.
Mr. Stevens stated that the matter relating to the
lease as mentioned by Mr. O'Keefe, is irrelevant to
these proceedings. He stated that the parking in the
area will not be impacted due to this project. He also
stated that the plan is extremely sensitive to the
bluff area.
Mr. William Ray, stated that his wife, Beverly Ray, is
the tenant being referred to at 1800 West Coast
Highway. He stated that the prior City Attorney.had
� IIIIIIII -9_
MINUTES
INDEX
r1
U
Motion
All Ayes
•
WIN
� r �
v m 3 7c W >
April 8, 1982
of Newport Beach
reviewed the lease. He stated that his wife has leased
this property for 7' years and does not want to be
bought out of it. He stated that the lease in question
is in effect until 1987.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Balalis, Mr. Burnham stated that based upon the
information which has been submitted, the Commission
can act upon this application.
Commissioner Allen stated that she would like
assurances from the applicant that the views will not
be obstructed. She.. suggested that the applicant
present this project to the neighbors of the area and
the Cliff Haven Community- Association; in order to
clear up any misconceptions relating to the project.
Commissioner Balalis stated that the Commission is more
concerned with the preservation of public views, not.
necessarily private views. He requested that the
applicant provide information which would assure the
Commission that the proposed residential development
will not substantially obstruct views of the bay from
the public park adjacent to the site.
Mr. Burnham requested that Mr. O'Keefe and Mrs. Ray,
forward any information to the .City Attorney's Office,
which they feel impacts this application and the right
of the Planning Commission to take action on this
project.
Mr. Stevens stated that they could build a model of the
project which would depict the proposed structure in
relationship to the surrounding area..
Balalis stated that a model is not needed,. but
suggested that the applicant run a balloon test on the
site during the next week.
X Motion was made to continue this item, Use Permit No.
X X X X X X 1986, to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 22,
1982, in order for the applicant to prepare information
to assure the Commission that the proposed residential.
development would not substantially obstruct views of
the bay from the public park adjacent to the site,
which MOTION CARRIED.
-10-
MINUTES
INDEX
April 8, 1982
MINUTES
F N City. of Newport- Beach
INDEX
Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with (Item #3
the development of a 41,494 sq. ft. i marine office and
retail commercial center.
t&lup
Request to permit the construction of a marine office
and retail commercial center in the Recreational Marine AND
Commercial Area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan
Area which exceeds the basic height limit of 26 feet in
the 26/35 Foot Height. Limitation District and contains - -
a greater gross floor area than .5 times the buildable Item #4
area of the site. The proposal also includes. a
modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use
of compact car, spaces for a portion of the required
off - street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an USE PERMIT
environmental document. N0. 2066
• LOCATION:. A portion of Lot G, and Lot M, Tract No.
919, located at 3101 West Coast Highway,
on the southerly side of West Coast
Highway, between Newport Boulevard and Continu
Riverside Avenue, in the Mariner's Mile to May
Specific Plan Area. 1982
ZONE: - SP -5
APPLICANTS: Richard V. Valdes and M.V. Threinen,
Irvine
Motion
All Ayes
r1
OWNERS:. Same as applicants
Planning Director Hewicker suggested that Items No. 3
and 4 - Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 2066, be
continued so that proper notice can be given to all
property owners within '300 feet of the property,
including owners and residents of the Towers.
Motion was made to continue the Traffic Study and Use.
xxx
Permit No. 2066 to the.Planning Commission Meeting of
May 6, -1982, which MOTION CARRIED.
-11-
N�MISSIONERS
April B, 1982
m m
m x H City of Newport Beach
c z v w
MINUTES
IIIIIIII IMLL CALL I I I I 1 1 1 1 I INDEX
Request to amend a previously approved use permit
establishing a restaurant facility with on -sale beer
and wine in the C -1 District, so as to change the hours
of .operation to include the service of food and
beverages at lunch time during the week.
LOCATION: Lot 53, Block B, Tract No. 673, located
at 3840 East - Coast - Highway. on the
northerly side of East Coast Highway
between Hazel Drive and Seaward Road in
Corona del Mar.
ZONE: C -1 ..
-.I I .I i I -I I APPLICANT: Mitsuo Ueno, Costa Mesa..
OWNER: -Duca McCoy, Corona del Mar
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
• and Mr.. George Vogel, representing the applicant,'
requested approval of this application so as to change
the hours of operation to include the service of food
and beverages at lunch time during the week. He stated.
that the request is to have only the sushi bar area
open which seats 13 persons..
•
'In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek,
Mr. Vogel stated that the restaurant closes for
business at 12:00 midnight. Commissioner Beek stated
that the .previous minutes indicate that the closing
hour shall be at 11:00 p.m.
Commissioner Kurlander expressed his concern that the
parking in the area may be impacted by the lunch time
proposal. Mr. Vogel stated that the engineering
business at this location only has two full time
employees and a very limited walk -in business. He also
stated that the owner of the engineering business, Mr.
Peter Duca, lives within one block of the office and
walks to work. . He stated that Mr. Duca has sent a
letter to the Planning Commission dated March 3,. 1982,
supporting this request.
-12-
Item #5
USE PERMIT
N0. 2006
Amended
DENIED
1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation
of the use or building applied for will, under the
circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed use;
and be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood, and the general
welfare of the City, inasmuch as adequate parking
is not available for the existing 'commercial use
and the proposed restaurant facility during
regular business hours of the week.
• The Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 p.m. and
reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
•
r
COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
April 8.,
1982
Request to waive a portion of the required off- street
Item #6
m x
City of Newport
Beach
.
LL CALL
INDEX
Motion
X
Motion was made to
deny Use Permit No. 2006 (Amended)
Ayes
X
X
X
X
The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning
Code so as to allow a third on -site parking space to
USE PERMIT
with the following
finding, which MOTION CARRIED:
Noes
X
Abstain
adjacent to an alley where only two spaces presently
X
FINDING:
1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation
of the use or building applied for will, under the
circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed use;
and be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood, and the general
welfare of the City, inasmuch as adequate parking
is not available for the existing 'commercial use
and the proposed restaurant facility during
regular business hours of the week.
• The Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 p.m. and
reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
•
r
-13-
*
Request to waive a portion of the required off- street
Item #6
parking in conjunction with the expansion of an
existing commercial building which is non - conforming
relative to the amount of off - street parking provided.
The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning
Code so as to allow a third on -site parking space to
USE PERMIT
NO. 2072
encroach into the required 10 foot rear yard setback,
adjacent to an alley where only two spaces presently
encroach into said setback.
APPROVED
LOCATION: Lot 26, Block 13, Section 4, Balboa
CONDI-
Island Tract, located at 321 Marine
TIONALLY
Avenue, on the westerly side of Marine
Avenue, between Balboa Avenue and North
Bay Front, on Balboa Island.
.ZONE: C -1 -
-
-13-
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
April 8, 1982
m � m
City, of Newport Beach
c n m m
OLL CALL INDEX
OWNER: Sauter,
� Same asapplic Balboa Island
ant
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Ms. Elsa Sauter, the applicant, appeared before the
Commission and requested approval of this application.
Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2072,
A11 Ayes X X X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, which
MOTION CARRIED;
FINDINGS:
1. That the existing and proposed use is consistent
with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
the Draft Local Coastal Plan and is compatible
with surrounding land uses.
• 2. The , project will not have any significant
environmental impact.
3.. That the proposed expansion is minor in nature and
will not significantly increase the intensity of
use of the subject property.
4. That the existing' and proposed parking space
encroachments into the required 10 foot rear yard.
setback adjacent to the alley are minor in nature
and will not, under the circumstances of the
particular case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious
to property and improvements in the neighborhood
or the general welfare of the City and further
that the proposed modification is consistent with
the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Code..
5. The approval of Use Permit No. 2072 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.
-14-
f m $ m
c° a m ro D
April 8, 1982
itv of Newaort Beach
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall he . in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan, floor
plan, and elevations.
2. That a minimum of three (3) on -site parking spaces
be maintained at all times for the commercial use
of the property.
• x x
Request to construct four (4) community directional/
identification signs on Office Site "C" in the Koll
Center Newport Planned Community.
LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 120 -44 & 45
(Resubdivision -No. 635) located on the
• easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard
between Birch Street and Campus Drive in
the Koll Center Newport Planned
Community.
-ZONE: P -C -
APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. Ron Hendrickson, representing The Irvine
Company, appeared before the Commission and requested
approval of the identification signs for MacArthur
Court. Mr. Hendrickson stated that they are not
desirous of identifying this project as Koll Center
Newport on Birch Street and Campus Drive, at their
intersections with MacArthur Boulevard, as suggested in
the staff report.
MINUTES
Mr. Hendrickson stated that they would be willing to
include the words, "Newport Beach" on the MacArthur
Court sign at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard
and Campus Drive to indicate where Newport Beach ends.
• and The City of Irvine begins.
-15-
INDEX
USE PERMIT
N0: 2073
APPROVED
CONDI-
TIONALLY
April 8, 1982
X
w � m
x m City of Newport Beach
Planning Director Hewicker discussed the general
purpose of community identification signs in the Koll
Center Newport Planned Community. He stated that the
Commission must determine if they want to allow
groupings of buildings, within the planned community,
to be signed in the same manner as the entire planned
community is signed.
Mr. .Hendrickson requested the findings and conditions
of approval as outlined in Exhibit "B" of the staff
report.
Commissioner. Beek stated that the Commission must
determine what the motorists will be looking for in
five years. He stated that the MacArthur Court signs
at the entrance of the development will be very useful
to the motorists and will help direct the traffic to
the appropriate locations. However, he stated that the
MacArthur Court signs at the corner of MacArthur
Boulevard will be very misleading to the motorist.
• Further, he stated that the Newport.Beach City boundary
is better indicated by a standard highway sign.
Motion Motion was made to approve the MacArthur Court signs at
the entrances to the MacArthur Court development and
deny the MacArthur Court signs at the corners of
MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive and MacArthur
Boulevard and Birch Street. The "Koll Center Newport"
community identification sign as suggested in Condition
No. 3 of Exhibit "A ", shall be deleted.
Commissioner King stated that a MacArthur Court
community identification sign at the corner of Campus
Drive and MacArthur Boulevard would be of vital
importance to the directional flow of traffic and would
alert the motorist to the location of MacArthur Court.
Amendment I I I I I I Amendment was made to the motion to allow the signs at
Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard and to allow the
two directional signs at both Birch Street and Campus
Drive for MacArthur Court.
Mr. Hendrickson stated that these signs are
substantially set back on the property and it is very
clear that they identify the project. He stated that
it is very important to have the identification signs
• on Campus Drive as.well as Birch Street.
-16-
MINUTES
INDEX
COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
April 8, 1982
r c
m
C 3 6
m m N w w =
City of Newport Beach
3=0
L.L CALL
INDEX
Substitute
Substitute Motion was made to accept the four
Motion
X
directional signs as proposed by The Irvine Company in
Ayes
K
X
X
X
X
the locations as indicated, with the provision that the
Noes
X
X
words "Newport Beach" will be added to the sign at the
corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive, subject
to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "B" as
follows, which'SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED: -
•
•
FINDINGS:
1. That the request is consistent with the standards
and requirements of the Planned Community Text.
2. The approval of Use Permit No. 2073 will not,
under the circumstances of the.particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, and general welfare of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of such proposed
use or be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements, in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That the proposed signs shall be constructed in
.substantial conformance with the submitted plans
except as noted below.
2. That the proposed signs at the entrance drive on
Birch Street and Campus Drive shall not exceed
four (4) feet in height, measured from grade.
3. That all proposed signs shall be exteriorly
illuminated.
4. That the proposed signs shall maintain a minimum
setback of ten (10) feet from any property line
adjacent to a public right -of -way.
5. That the words "Newport Beach" shall be added to
the sign at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and
Campus Drive. -
-17-
"ANSSIONERS MINUTES
April 8, 1982
3 �
>I City. of Newport Beach
WLL CALL I I I I I I I I INDEX
Request to establish an entertainment center with
electronic games of skill in an existing building
located in the C -1 District. -
LOCATION: A portion of Lots No. 2 and 3, Block P,
Tract No. 323, located at 3024 East
Coast Highway, on the easterly side of
East Coast Highway between Jasmine
Avenue and Iris Avenue in Corona del
Mar.
ZONE: I C -1 -
APPLICANT: Hersel Meyers, Huntington Beach
OWNER: -Mousa K. Mahgerefteh, Huntington Beach
AND
AND
• Request to establish an entertainment center with
electronic games of skill in an existing building (i.e.
The Balboa Inn) located in the C -1 District.
LOCATION: Lots 12, 13 14,.15 & 16, Block 10,
Balboa Tract, located at- 105 -Main Street
on the northwesterly corner of Main
Street and West Ocean Front in Central
Balboa.
ZONE: C -1 -Z - -
APPLICANT: Chien -Shan Wang, Balboa
OWNER: Same as applicant
Chairman McLaughlin referred to Items No. 8 and 9 - Use
Permit No. 2074 and Use Permit No. 2075, relating to
electronic game centers, and suggested that these .
items be continued until such time as the City Council
has considered the proposed Skill Games Ordinance..
• -18
Motion
A11 Ayes
•
MINUTES
April 8, 1982
3 R
� r c
m � m
3 City of Newport Beach
INDEX
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek,
Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that
the Commission has the right to continue these items
for a reasonable period of time to allow the City
Council to review and take action on the proposed
ordinance.
Request to permit the construction of a two -unit I.Item #10
residential condominium and related garages in the R -2
District.
USE PERMIT
AND NO. 2077
Request to create a single parcel of land for
residential condominium development where one lot AND
presently exists.
- LOCATION:
Lot 11, Block 140, Canal Section,
located at 207 40th Street, on the
Item #11
Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 2074 and Use
X X
I IXI
X
X'
[ I
Permit No. 2075 to the Planning Commission Meeting of
RESUB-
ZONE:
R -2 -
May 20, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED.
Request to permit the construction of a two -unit I.Item #10
residential condominium and related garages in the R -2
District.
USE PERMIT
AND NO. 2077
Request to create a single parcel of land for
residential condominium development where one lot AND
presently exists.
- LOCATION:
Lot 11, Block 140, Canal Section,
located at 207 40th Street, on the
Item #11
westerly side of 40th Street between
Balboa Boulevard and River Avenue, in
West Newport.
RESUB-
ZONE:
R -2 -
DIVISION
NO. 722
APPLICANT:
Roger and Beatrice Ledin, Costa Mesa
OWNER:
Ledin Family Trust, Costa Mesa
BOTH
ENGINEER:
Robin B. Hamers, Costa Mesa.
APPROVED
CONDI-
TIONALLY
Agenda Item
Nos. 10 and 11 were heard concurrently due
to their relationship.
• II II II II �-
April 8, 1982
� x
� r c
m � �
m F. City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
IIIIIIIII ALL CALL I 1 1 1 III I I INDEX
The public hearing opened in connection with these
items and Mr. David Larson, representing the architect,
Spangler, Shachtman and Associates, appeared before the
Commission. Mr. Larson referred to Page 4 of the staff
report and requested that they not be required to
redesign the development with four full size parking
spaces. -
Mr. .Roger Ledin, the applicant, appeared before the
Commission and requested approval of these applications
as proposed.
Motion JJJJJXJJ Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2077,
Ayes X X X x subject to the following findings and conditions, which
Noes X MOTION CARRIED:
FINDINGS:
1. That each of the proposed units has been designed
as a condominium with separate and individual
utility connections.
• 2. The project will comply with all applicable
standard plans and zoning requirements for new
buildings applicable to the district.in which the
proposed project is located, at the time of
approval.
3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code
requirements in effect at the time of approval.
4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals
and policies of the General Plan.
5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available
for the proposed residential condominium
development.
6. That no low or moderate income persons will be
evicted or displaced in conjunction with the
proposed residential condominium development, as
required under Section 65590 of the California
Government Code.
• IIIIIIII
Motion
Ayes
Noes
-- - -
April 8, 1982
� r �
• m m
City of Newport Beach
7. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the
use or building applied for will not, under the
circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort
and general welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be
detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan, floor
plans and elevations.
2. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each
dwelling unit.
3. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision
No. 722 be fulfilled.
I I IXI I Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 722,
X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions; which
X MOTION CARRIED:
FINDINGS:
1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances
of the City, all applicable general or specific
plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied
with the plan of subdivision.
2. That. the proposed resubdivision presents no
problems from a planning standpoint.
rnnm rmrnrac.
1. That a parcel map be filed.
2.. That all improvements be constructed as required
by ordinance and the Public Works Department.
• IIIIIIII
MINUTES
INDEX
\AMISSIONERS MINUTES
April S, 1982
�x
MR]"
3. That each dwelling unit be served with individual
water services and sewer laterals to the main
unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Department.
4. That vehicular access to the parcel be from the
adjacent alley.
5. That the proposed driveway join the existing alley
paving prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.
x
ADDITIONAL, BUSINESS ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
Suggested Amendment to the City's Subdivision Code .
Motion X Motion was made to set for public hearing, a suggested
AyeS. X_X X X 'X X. Amendment to the City's Subdivision Code on May 6,
1982, which MOTION CARRIED.
Housing Element Implementation - Density Increases
Study Session item to be discussed at 2:00 p.m. on May
6, 1982, will include the Housing Element
.Implementation - Density Increases.
There being no further. business, the Planning
Commission adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Joan Winburn, Secretary
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
• I I I I 1 I I I -2.2-
a m
N
City
of
Newport
Beach
MR]"
3. That each dwelling unit be served with individual
water services and sewer laterals to the main
unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Department.
4. That vehicular access to the parcel be from the
adjacent alley.
5. That the proposed driveway join the existing alley
paving prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.
x
ADDITIONAL, BUSINESS ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
Suggested Amendment to the City's Subdivision Code .
Motion X Motion was made to set for public hearing, a suggested
AyeS. X_X X X 'X X. Amendment to the City's Subdivision Code on May 6,
1982, which MOTION CARRIED.
Housing Element Implementation - Density Increases
Study Session item to be discussed at 2:00 p.m. on May
6, 1982, will include the Housing Element
.Implementation - Density Increases.
There being no further. business, the Planning
Commission adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Joan Winburn, Secretary
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
• I I I I 1 I I I -2.2-
4�3
r 1
u
•
CHAPTER 20.73
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS
Sections:
EXHIBIT A
20.73.005 Intent and Purpose.
20.73.010 Definitions.
20.73.015 Use Permit Required.
20.73.016 Planning Commission or City Council Review.
20.73.019 Physical Elements Report.
20.73.020 Fees.
20.73.025 Standards - All Condominium Projects.
20.73.030 Modification or Waiver of Development Standards.
20.73.035 Condominium Conversion Regulations, Vacancy Rate.
20.73.040 Existing Structures and Uses, Approved Plans.
20.73.045 Separability.
20.73.005 INTENT AND PURPOSE. The City Council finds and
determines that residential condominium projects differ in many aspects from
other types of construction and form of ownership and development. Therefore,
these regulations are adopted to guide the development of new residential
condominium projects and conversions of existing dwelling units to condominium
projects. It is the intent of these regulations to provide a balanced mix
between ownership and rental housing in order to assure the development of a
variety of housing types to serve the needs of the community.
20.73.010 DEFINITIONS. The following terms used herein shall have
the meanings indicated:
A. CONDOMINIUM. The term "condominium" shall mean and include the
following: A condominium project, as defined in Section 1350 of
the Civil Code, containing two or more condominiums, as defined
in Section 783 of the Civil Code; a community apartment project,
as defined in Section 11004 of the Business and Professions Code,
containing two or more rights of exclusive occupancy; a stock
cooperative, as defined in Section 11003.2 of the Business and
Professions Code, containing two or more rights of exclusive
occupancy; or any other such project as defined by state law. In
addition, for the purpose of this Chapter, development which
offers own- your -own or fee ownership units, whereby the
individual owns land directly below the "footprint" of said unit,
and all other land within the project is owned in common, shall
be defined as a condominium.
B. CONVERSION. The term "conversion" shall mean the change of
rental dwelling units to condominium ownership as defined above.
FM
EXHIBIT A
C. ORGANIZATIONAL DOCUMENTS. The term "organizational documents"
• shall mean the declaration of restrictions, articles of
incorporation, bylaws and any contracts for the maintenance,
management or operation of all or any part of a project.
D. PROJECT. The term "project" shall mean the entire parcel of real
property proposed to be used or divided, as land or airspace,
into two or more units as a condominium.
E. VACANCY RATE. The term "vacancy rate" shall mean the number of
vacant dwellings in projects of five or more dwelling units being
offered for rent or lease in the City of Newport Beach shown as a
percentage of the total number of dwellings in projects of five
or more dwelling units offered for or under rental or lease
agreement in the City. Said vacancy rate shall be as established
once each year, in April, by survey of 15% of the City's rental
units in projects of five or more dwelling units.
20.73.015 USE PERMIT REQUIRED. Condominium projects may be
permitted in any district in which residential uses are permitted, including
Planned Communities, subject to securing a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 20.83 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In Planned
Community Districts, residential developments, all or part of which have been
specifically designated as condominium projects on the approved Planned
Community Development Plan, shall be permitted subject to the requirement of a
• specific Planning Commission finding that the Commission has considered the
criteria and requirements of this Chapter in approving the Planned Community
and accompanying regulatory text. In addition, the approval of a tentative
and final tract map or parcel map shall be required for all condominium
projects in accordance with Title 19, Newport Beach Municipal Code. No
persons shall construct a new condominium development, or convert an existing
residential use to a condominium, within the City of Newport Beach without
first complying with the provisions of this Chapter. Tentative or parcel maps
shall not be required until after a use permit has been approved, but such
maps and permit may be processed for approval concurrently.
20.73.016 PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. The
Planning Commission or City Council, in approving any use permit for a
condominium conversion, may consider but shall not necessarily be limited to
the following criteria:
1. Age and physical condition of the building and accessory
structures such as garages, carports, swimming pools, etc.
2. Condition of wiring, plumbing, kitchen and bathroom fixtures.
3. Provision of adequate sound barriers and insulation between
units.
• 20.73.019 PHYSICAL ELEMENTS REPORT. All applications for
condominium conversion shall be accompanied by a physical elements report.
as
EXHIBIT A
Such report shall be prepared by an appropriately licensed contractor,
• architect, civil engineer, or structural engineer other than the owner. The
report shall detail the estimated remaining useful life of each element of the
proposed project including roofs, foundations, exterior paint, paved surfaces,
mechanical systems, electrical systems, plumbing systems, sewage systems,
swimming pools, sprinkler systems for landscaping, utility delivery systems,
central or community heating and air conditioning systems, fire protection
systems and structural elements. For any element whose useful life is less
than five (5) years, a replacement cost estimate shall be provided in the
physical elements report. In addition, the report shall evaluate the
structure(s) in terms of existing building and zoning code provisions. The
physical elements report shall be provided to prospective buyers of the
converted units by the developer.
20.73.020 FEES. In addition to use permit and parcel map fees,
condominium applications shall be accompanied by (a) fees established by
resolution of the City Council for review of organizational documents of the
project submitted as part of a tentative tract or parcel map application; and
(b) a special City building and zoning inspection report and fee, in the case
of condominium conversion applications.
Use Permit, Tentative and Parcel Map Applications for condominium conversions
will not be accepted until completion of the special City building and zoning
inspection report.
• 20.73.025 STANDARDS - ALL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS. Condominium
projects whether new projects or conversions, shall conform to the following,
and the Planning Commission or the City Council, on appeal or review shall
make specific findings as to such conformance in any action approving a use
permit application.
A. The project shall comply with all applicable standard plans and
specifications, adopted City and State building codes, and zoning
requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in
which the proposed project is located at the time of approval.
Whenever regulations or restrictions imposed by this Section are
either more or less restrictive than regulations or restrictions
imposed by any other law, the regulations, restrictions or laws
which are most restrictive, or which impose higher standards,
shall govern.
B. The project lot size shall conform to the Zoning Code area
requirements in effect at the time of approval.
C. The project shall be consistent with the adopted goals and
policies of the General Plan, particularly with regard to the
balance and dispersion of housing types within the City.
D. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or
building applied for shall not, under the circumstances of the
• particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
tz--
EXHIBIT A
neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious
• to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City.
20.73.030 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
A. ZONING CODE. The Planning Commission, by a 4/5 vote of those
present and voting, shall have the right to modify or waive any
zoning standards required by Section 20.73.025(A), if such
modification or waiver will have no greater adverse impact on
adjacent properties or structures than strict compliance with
these standards.
B. BUILDING CODE. The Planning Commission may, by a 2/3 vote of
those present and voting, authorize the Building Official to
approve minor variations from the Building Code with regard to
conversion of existing structures where full compliance would
present practical difficulties and result in extreme hardship and
where such modification or waiver will have no impact on the
health and safety of future occupants and will in no way be
detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements.
20.73.035 CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION REGULATIONS.
A. All applications for conversion of existing rental dwelling units
• shall conform to the following, and the Planning Commission, or
City Council on appeal or review, shall make specific findings as
to such conformance in any action approving a use permit for a
condominium conversion.
1. The application shall propose special considerations for
fixed income elderly tenants and handicapped persons in the way of
extended notice of conversion intent, relocation assistance, or other
means.
2. Existing tenants whose income is below 1208 of the County's
median income shall be permitted to remain as renters for a period of
one year following notice of intent to convert.
3. Existing tenants whose income is below 808 of the County's
median income shall receive relocation assistance.
B. Vacancy Rate Regulation. Where it is proposed to convert an
existing residential development of five or more dwelling units
to condominium units, the Planning Commission, or the City
Council on appeal or review, shall disapprove, without prejudice,
any use permit application if the rental vacancy rate for
projects of five or more dwelling units in the City at the time
of the public hearing is equal to or less than five percent (58).
Overriding Considerations. Notwithstanding the above, the
• Planning Commission may approve a condominium conversion use
permit and, if approved, shall make corresponding findings, if
a�
EXHIBIT A
evidence has been submitted that two - thirds (2/3) of the existing
• tenants, and any tenants evicted during the twelve month period
prior to the application to convert, have voted to recommend
approval of the conversion.
C. Coastal Zone. At such time as the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal or review, approves the conversion of existing
rental dwelling units which are located in the Coastal Zone, the
City shall require that all provisions of Section 65590 of the
California Government Code (SB 626, Mello) shall be met. The
project applicant shall be responsible for the provision of
replacement dwelling units for low and moderate income persons as
required under Section 65590 and shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Planning Commission, or City Council on
appeal or review that the replacement units will be provided.
D. Phasing. The total number of conversions of duplex to fourplex
units approved by the Planning Commission, or City Council on
appeal or review, shall not exceed five percent of the City's
total stock of duplex to fourplex units in a given calendar year.
E. It shall be the responsibility of the project applicant to
provide such information on existing and previous tenants as is
necessary for the administration of this ordinance, including but
not limited to:
1. A list of all tenants in the year preceding the
• application to convert.
2. A list of all tenants evicted in the year preceding
the application to convert and the reasons for the eviction.
3. Information regarding tenant income as required.
20.73.040 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND USE; APPROVED PLANS. Any
residential condominium development, whether originally established as such or
converted from multi - family units, which lawfully exists on the effective date
of this ordinance, or for which an approved Planned Community Development Plan
specifically provides that proposed residential developments shall be
condominiums, shall be permitted to continue such use as approved. Any
addition, expansion or substantial alteration of the development plans shall
be subject to all provisions of this Chapter.
20.73.045 SEPARABILITY. If any provisions or requirements of this
Chapter shall be found invalid or unconstitutional in application or in
interpretation by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter. (Ord. 1817 s
1, 1979)