Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/09/1981�MISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Place: City Council Chambers MINUTES Time: 7:30 p.m. jDate: April 9, 1981 w City of Newport Beach INDEX X1* 1XIAll present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary I . APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Commissioner Allen referred to the Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 1981, Page 4, second paragraph and stated that the word "Mr. should be replaced with the words "Ms. Ficker." Motion X Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the All Ayes X X X X X Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 19, 1981, as.revised by Commissioner Allen, which MOTION CARRIED. Staff requested that Item No. 6 - Use Permit No. 1941 (Amended) be continued to the meeting of April 23, 1981. Staff further advised that the applicant for Item No. 8 - Modification No. 2633 (Revised) has requested that this item be con- tinued to the meeting of August 20, 1981. Motion X Motion was made to continue Item No. 6 to the All Ayes X X X X X Planning Commission Meeting of April 23, 1981, and Item No. 8 to the Planning Commission Meeting of August.20, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * • 11111111 -1- CALL • w April 9, 1981 M Beach MINUTES INDEX Proposed amendments to the Land Use, Resi- Item #1 dential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, and GENERAL the acceptance of an Environmental Document. PLAN AYMDMEN INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 80 -3 AND AND Request to consider a Traffic Study for a pro- posed expansion of the existing Marriott Hotel Item #2 complex. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 75 -34 STUD (Resubdivision No. 497) located at 900 Newport Center Drive, on the southwesterly corner of New- Both port Center Drive and Santa Barbara font Drive in Newport Center. to M 1981 ZONES: C -O -H, 0 -S APPLICANT: Marriott Hotel, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. Chairman Haidinger asked for public testimony at this time, and the following persons appeared before the Commission: Ms. Dee Dee Masters, representing the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce and Business Property Associ- ation, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Masters stated that in addition to the General Plan Amendment,. the Local Coastal Plan relates to the Marguerite Avenue intersection improve- ments, modification to the existing median and removal of,parking to provide additional lanes in both the eastbound and westbound lanes. She suggested that before there is further develop- ment, Pelican Hills Road be in place and that San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hills Road be 0 11111111 -2- MISSIONERS April 9, 1981 MINUTES 9N a m�+� ? D' m 3 to X W 7 AN • � M9LL CALL I III Jill I INDEX 0 • n U in place. She stated that this will provide an alternate route around Corona del Mar and help to ease the traffic problem. She stated that Corona del Mar can not afford to lose 200 or more parking spaces, as they have no alternative parking. Ms. Beverly Jones of 700 Heliotrope in Corona del Mar expressed her concerns relating to the traf- fic on Pacific Coast Highway. She stated that an alternate traffic route must be established in order to preserve the character of Corona del Mar. Commissioner Thomas asked staff to explain the possible removal of parking in Corona del Mar. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the County has published an amendment to the Downcoast Local Coastal Plan which includes a phasing schedule and traffic mitigation measures for this area. He stated that this proposed amendment would possibly alter the median and remove parking on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar as a mitigation measure to eleviate traffic congestion He stated that the EIR for General Plan Amendment 80 -3 only suggests these actions as potential mitigation measures. He stated that the staff report specifically recommends that the median not be altered or that the parking be removed. In addition, he stated that the revised phasing plan for the LCP mentions the possible extension of Ford Road to connect with Pelican Hills Road. He added that the hearing on these proposals will be on April 15, 1981, before the County Planning Commission. Commissioner Thomas stated that the County shoul not be able to mitigate their downcoast traffic by making changes to the City's traffic pattern. Commissioner Balalis stated that he had not been made aware of this problem. Staff responded.tha they had only found out about this yesterday. Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern and -3- r1 U COMMISSIONERS April 9, 1981 MINUTES CD D City of Newport Beach stated that the Commission and the City Council should take action to oppose any removal of park- ing on Pacific Coast Highway and oppose the connection of ford Road with Pelican Hills Road. Commissioner Allen asked if the County has any jurisdiction to implement these measures. Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that that Pacific Coast Highway is a State Highway. However, he stated that the State does not make a practice of doing projects without the City's input and compliance. Mr. J. R. Blakemore, resident of Harbor View Hills, expressed his concerns as follows: 1) Traffic, especially that on Pacific.Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. He stated that the roadway proposals by The Irvine Company will provide relief to the traffic problems and save millions of dollars to the taxpayers in construc- tion costs; 2) Retail complex in Newport Villag He stated that The Irvine Company is now willing to reduce the retail portion and suggested that the .two restaurants be located in the proposed Corporate Plaza West, which would be a more suit- able location in Newport Center; 3) Site Plane. He stated that The Irvine Company has agreed that no building, including roof structures or land- scaping, will penetrate the site plane, as that found in Corporate Plaza; 4) Connector streets from MacArthur Boulevard to Avocado Avenue. He requested that the General Plan contain a specifi statement that Harbor View Drive and Crown Drive are.not to be extended; 5) Underground utilitie He stated that this is supported by the residents of Harbor View Hills; and, 6) The Bus Terminal. He stated that The Irvine Company has expressed willingness to relocate the bus site if the Orang County Transit District will locate their propose park and ride location close. to San Joaquin Hills Road. In summary, Mr. Blakemore stated that if The Irvine Company will commit to the foregoing and the much needed bypass system, their project should be approved. He also stated that the City will be gaining the additional annual revenue. ILE W001 n LJ COMMISSIONERS April 9, 1981 MINUTES I City of Newport Beach LL INDEX Ms. Jean Wagener, representing the Airport Action Association, stated that they are opposed to the Newport Center expansion because of the impact to John Wayne Airport. She stated that a luxury hotel is not needed for the people of Newport Beach. She stated that The Irvine Company has been and continues to be a.member of the Communit Airport Council which actively promotes the ex- pansion of.all services and facilities at John Wayne Airport. She stated that this has damaged the City. She requested that the Commission consider the consequences of this plan to the citizens of,the City who are affected by the noise, traffic and problems directly related to John Wayne Airport. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis Ms. Wagener stated that they are opposed to the Marriott Hotel expansion and the proposed office buildings in Newport Center. She stated that residential units are much more in keeping with the intent of the General Plan. She stated that Newport Beach is a residential community. She added that the Newport Center Merchant's Association has dropped their membership with the Community Airport Council. Ms. Debbie Gray, resident of Dover. Shores, stated that she is in support of The Irvine Company. She stated that.The.Irvine Company has improved the City with trees, grass, roads and are helpifig to dredge the Upper Bay. Mr. Ernest.George, representing commercial pro- perty owners of .Corona del Mar, and a homeowner of.Corona del Mar, expressed his concern for the traffic that is currently being generated throug Corona del Mar. He stated that the traffic in this area must be eleviated. He stated that the expansion of,Pacific Coast Highway to six lanes and removal of_the parking, will constitute a freeway, which is not a solution to the problem. He stated that the remedy is to support The Irvine Company in constructing San Joaquin Hills • I I I I I I� I -5 April 9, 1981 MINUTES n = 0 OJ D H City of Newport Beach INDEX Road, which will bring relief to the critical traffic problem. Commissioner'Beek asked Mr. George if the road should be constructed first, to see if it will eleviate the traffic problem. Mr. George stated that the construction of the road should be done within a certain time sequence, so that the buildings may also be built. He stated that this will be of great benefit to the City and therefore it is important to tie the two together Mrs. Stewart, President of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce, read to the Commission their letter to the City Council dated February 10, 198 The letter requested information in graph form as to the average daily traffic levels, and also requested impacts on and effects of the proposed Newport Center Management Program be incorporated into this study. She stated that a Corona del Mar bypass plus the extension of San Joaquin • Hills Road must be completed and fully operation- al prior to the occupancy of the new development at Newport Center. Mr. Dick Succa, resident of 715 Marguerite Avenue in Corona del Mar, stated that Pacific Coast Highway is a dangerous thoroughfare to cross. He stated that the parking is very necessary to the business community in Corona del Mar. He also stated that Marguerite Avenue is currently an extremely busy thoroughfare. He stated that the County should not be dictating to the City how to handle the traffic. He stated that he is opposed to the removal of parking on Pacific Coast Highway, as there is an alternate route which can be established, being San Joaquin Hills Road. He requested that the Commission consider.the feelings of the taxpayers who finance the City, rather that the people who only use the community. Ms. Lucille Patterson, resident of.Corona del Mar expressed her concerns relating to Pacific Coast • 11111111 -6- 0W 7 I -V CALL April 9, 1981 Of . 1 Highway. She stated that if the parking is re- moved, people will begin parking their cars in the residential districts. MINUTES Ms. Bobby Lovell, resident of 1242 Ocean Front, referred to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance portion of the staff report and asked for clarification. Chairman Haidinger stated that the portion re- lating to modifying the existing traffic phasing regulations was included in the staff report as an information item. He stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council needs to know to what.degree the Traffic Phasing Ordinance would or would not allow whatever changes this general plan amendment is proposing. Ms. Lovell stated that The Irvine Company is not modifying their project to meet the needs of the people, they are adding to an existing General Plan which involves a great deal of building, and also the changing of a Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • Mr. Gary Delinka, owner of Gary's Deli in Corona del Mar stated that he is Concerned with the . traffic conditions on Pacific Coast Highway and stated that last August, a car drove through the front of his store. Mrs. Bathum, representing the Santa Ana Heights Homeowner's Association, read to the Commission a letter she had received from Supervisor Nestan concerning the expansion of the John Wayne Airpo The letter explained the three major issues whic were facing the Board of Supervisors; noise, the need for a larger airport and the Boards' credi- bility. The letter expressed the Supervisor's objections to the expansion of John Wayne Airpor In summary, Mrs. Bathum stated that the people of the community should not have to be forced to suffer the consequences of this proposal. Mr. Frank Rhodes of 1417 E. Bay in Balboa, re presenting Causey and Rhodes, stated that they are in favor of The Irvine Company's plan. He stated that The Irvine Company has benefited the -7- 0 INDEX April 9, 1981 MINUTES 5 o W D N w City of Newport Beach INDEX City and has increased the quality of life within the City. He stated that he is proposing an 80,000 square foot medical office building to be included in the 400 Block of Newport Center: Mr. Oscar Smith, resident of Corona del Mar, stated that this issue is of major concern to the residents and store owners in Corona del Mar. He stated that more foresight must be utilized when considering a plan of such magnitude. He sug- gested that San Joaquin Hills Road be constructed before this enormous commercial enterprise is undertaken, and also suggested that there be a re analysis of the impacts and hazards that this pla will cause the community. Mr. Bill Ficker, the architect for the Marriott Hotel project, stated that their application is specific for an addition to the hotel. He stated that he hoped that the Commission will agree with his statement of reasonableness and approve.the Marriott Hotel addition. • Commissioner Beek referred to the EIR and stated that less than one -ninth of the Marriott Hotel employees live in Newport Beach. He stated that the proposed expansion will affect more of the lower level employees. He asked Mr. Ficker if this, proposed project will help to eleviate. the. problems of traffic or housing shortages. 'Mr. Ficker stated that real estate in Newport Beach is close to build out and does not allow for low cost housing. He stated that.a mere line on the map does not mean that every possible, living residential capability must be included within that City.boundary. He stated that the realities of regional planning must be balanced. He stated that it would.be unrealistic to think that low cost, high density housing can be provided for this project within the City. Mr. Dick Cannon, representing The Irvine Company and resident of Corona del Mar, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Cannon acknowledged the completeness of the responses and comments report prepared by the City's Environmental Consultant. April 9, 1981 MINUTES 9 Ho co > 2 1 City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Cannon stated that during the past two weeks, The Irvine Company has met with the residents of Harbor View Hills regarding Newport Village: He stated that The Irvine Company is willing to con- sider eliminating 58,000 square feet of retail development currently existing in the General Plan and replacing it with one and two story office building developments, similar to that in Corporate Plaza. He stated that this will also include removing 20,000 square feet from the site line and placing the two restaurants on Avocado Avenue. He also stated that they will plan the Newport Hills development area so that there are no through roads connecting to the Harbor View Hills development. He stated that the Corporate Plaza site line ordinance will be extended to the Newport Village area. He stated that they will strive to work with the OCTD in relocating their park and ride facility as far north as possible. He stated that they will be eliminating the; power poles as they currently exist on MacArthur • Boulevard, with the construction of the Avocado/ MacArthur couplet. Mr. Cannon stated that The Irvine Company does not support the removal of parking on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. He stated that this is not a valid mitigation measure for the plan. He stated that concurrent with the first phase of development of the coastal property, The Irvine Company is prepared to.develop and finance the roadway system which will ultimately connect to the Bonita Canyon /MacArthur Boulevard area. He stated that this system will remove the regional traffic from impacting the Corona del Mar.area. He added that this roadway system will cost The Irvine Company approximately twelve to fifteen million dollars. Mr. Cannon stated that Mr. Bob Shelton of The Irvine Company is prepared to address the.Com- mission relating to the concerns expressed on the Orange County Airport. He stated that a report has been prepared by Peat, Marwick & Mitchell C relative to the impact on the airport operations from this development. He stated that of the • -9- • 0 AMSSIONERS1 April 9, 1981 �x 5oaUP> ID City of Newport Beach MINUTES 3250 daily passengers at John Wayne Airport, approximately 80 passengers re.sult from the existing development in Newport Center. He stated that further development of Newport Center would result in an additional 40 passengers on a daily basis. He stated that this proposed development would not result in a significant increase in volume. Mr. Bob Shelton, representing The Irvine Company and resident of Corona del Mar, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Shelton stated that the essence of The Irvine Company's position is that the John Wayne Airport can not begin to meet the demands for air transportation in Orange County. He stated that an immediate and intensi- fied effort must be undertaken to find alternativ locations. He stated that this must be under- taken cooperatively by the public and private interests who are affected. He stated that to this end, The Irvine Company has been instru- mental in suggesting that a Blue Ribbon Committee be formed to accelerate this effort. He stated that alternative locations must be found as well as making maximum advantage of existing airports which have unused capacity. He stated that the John Wayne Airport deserves and requires some physical improvements to make it more functional. He stated that the number of flights should not be increased, unless and until, the noise reduc- tions contemplated by the Master Plan are achieve He stated that physical improvements to the air- port that would increase its activity, should be accompanied by ground transportation and circu- lation improvements in the area. He stated that this would be necessary to minimize further sur- face circulation difficulties. He stated that The Irvine Company has offered its resources to the community to help in the effort of establish- ing short and long range solutions to this issue. Commissioner Cokas asked Mr. Shelton to cite specific actions that have been.taken by The Irvine Company to solve this problem. Mr. Shelto -10- COMMISSIONERS April 9, 1981 MINUTES 1�w City of Newport Beach 112118 stated that they have indicated to the Board of Supervisors an effort to locate a major alterna- tive airport. He stated that a location between here and San Diego is seriously being considered He stated that there may also be ways of facili- tating transportation to and from Ontario. He stated that these are not easy solutions, but that The Irvine Company is most willing to cooperate with the City, the County and the Blue Ribbon Committee. Commissioner Cokas stated that he would like to see more specific and direct action taken by The, Irvine Company. Mr. Shelton stated that the initial study by the Blue Ribbon Committee on the SCAG Aviation Survey is just now getting underway and gathering momentum. Commissioner Beek asked if The Irvine Company plans to continue the development of office; buildings directly across from the airport. Mr. • Shelton stated that The Irvine Company will con- tinue with any projects that have already been authorized.to be built. He stated that the con- tributions of these projects that are underway or pending are not significant to passenger level at the airport. Commissioner Beek stated that he would be interested in knowing what percentage of flights originate from The Irvine Company properties. Commissioner Allen requested that the discussion with the airport consultant be deferred until the Commission has had the opportunity to read the airport study. Commissioner Allen raised a question to the staff relating to the improvements on the Avocado Avenue couplet, as conditioned by the TIC /Koll project. Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the condition included 48 feet of asphalt with curb and gutter, not concrete curb., gutter and sidewalk. He stated that asphalt is not considered as being full improvements on that side of the street. • 11111111 -11- j o 1+D 7 � Ul 7C N 3 April 9, 1981 Of MINUTES INDEX Mr. Ron Hendrickson, representing The Irvine Company, stated that the condition was for a rolled asphalt curb on the east side of the: street. He stated that there was never an intent to install a permanent concrete curb and .gutter for Corporate Plaza. Commissioner Balalis con- curred with the statements of Mr. Webb and Mr. Hendrickson. Commissioner Allen referred to the daily traffic volume of the existing General Plan and the.pro- posed General Plan Amendment 80 -3, Figure A and B. She asked that when San Joaquin Hills Road increases by 4,600 cars per.day, is this assuming that San Joaquin Hills Road is connected to Pelican Hills Road, which would be connected to Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Wes Pringle, the City's Traffic Consultant, stated that he would get back to Commissioner Allen with an answer to her question. Mr. Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that they will obtain the • assumptions on this model run. Commissioner Thomas suggested that the assumptions be listed on the same page. Commissioner Allen stated that she would also like to know how much the traffic will increase, if The Irvine Company is not required to connect Pelican Hills Road to San Joaquin Hills Road; how much the traffic will increase if these are required; and, how much traffic will increase with or without either of the two. Commissioner Beek stated that this projection should also make allowance for the housing pro - jects in the Pelican Hills area. He stated that there is the possibility that this road may generate more traffic than it eleviates, and may not help the Corona del Mar area at all. Mr. Pringle stated that the daily figures utilize include build out of the General Plan and devel- opment of the coastal area. He stated that these daily volumes, as opposed to the peak hour volume are for the ultimate build out of the General Pla and surrounding areas. • 11111111 -12- April 9, 1981 Of Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Pringle to find out if this included Sand Canyon Road. Commissioner Allen referred to the Marguerite Avenue intersection and the removal.of traffic on one block for either side on an hourly basis. She requested a design drawing of what it will take to remove parking at this intersection, if parking removal became necessary. Mr. Webb stated that in order to accomplish this, three lanes in each direction through the intersection would have to be obtained. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney; explained the purpose of a Statement of Facts and Overriding Considerations. He also explained the voting procedure that may be utilized on the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Commissioner Thomas stated that as he understands • the General Plan Amendment can be approved even though it may not meet the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mr. Talarico stated that this will depend on the decision as to what can be built in this development and how it will be phased. Commissioner Balalis stated that the Commission must be able to ensure that certain improvements will be made before the development is allowed to be accomplished. Mr. Burnham stated that this can be accomplished by imposing conditions as mitigation measures or conditions of approval. Commissioner Balalis stated that in the past, he has been dissatisfied with this course of action. He suggested that a development or contractural agreement be considered. Mr. Burnham explained the concept of development agreements. Commis- sioner Balalis stated that the General P1an.Amend ment could specify that a development agreement be entered into which would include the condition of the development. Commissioner Balalis then requested that the development agreement concept be presented to the Commission before the next meeting. • -13- 0 n u MMISSIONERS April 9, 1981 MINUTES Jim m:0 R w = City of Newport Beach CALLI 111 Jill ( INDEX Chairman. Haidinger identified the following issues that have been raised on General Plan Amendment 80 -3, and requested that these be addressed in`the next staff report: 1) Retail uses in Newport Village. 2) Phasing with the Corona del.Mar Freeway. 3) Substituting residential development for the proposed office development in Block 600 and the traffic reduction impacts. 4) Traffic Management Plan and the degree in which it will work, enforcement pro= visions, and conditioning any development as to its implementation and results. 5) Airport considerations and the degree i:n which this development will impact airport traffic and the degree in which the developer might contribute to the finding of alter - natives to the Orange County Airport. 6) Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the way in which it would have to be changed, if at all. And, limiting the amount of devel- opment prior to completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway and Pelican Hills Road. 7) Traffic Improvement Program and the amount of money to be contributed. 8) Development Agreement /Contractural Agree- ment. Is this the appropriate way to ask the developer to contribute money in advance to improve conditions in the City and still guarantee them the right to develop their property. 9) Construction of Pelican Hills Road and the degree in which to phase occupancy, with its completion and its effects on Corona del Mar commercial. 10) Relocation of the bus terminal to a point where it will have less impact on the residents of Harbor View Hills and the specific nature of the facility. 11) Provide the wording for preserving the, views from Harbor View Hills. 12) Provide the wording for no extension from Harbor View Drive to Crown Drive across MacArthur Boulevard. -14- April 9, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach INDEX 13) Corona del Mar Parking Removal. What the impact of this project will be in the Corona del Mar area without the retail development. Provide mechanism and design drawings. Commissioner Allen asked how the Commission will know that this is the completion of the develop- ment in Newport Center. Chairman Haidinger re- quested that the staff respond to the lid on development in the next staff report Commissioner Thomas stated that run -off from this urban area can not be allowed to keep entering the Bay. He requested that more realistic water quality measures be investigated. Commissioner Beek stated that the Irvine Indus- trial tract properties creates most of the traffi for the Orange County Airport. He referred.to the traffic problem and stated that the develop- ment of Pelican Hills Road by The Irvine Company is dependent upon the downcoast property. develop- ment. He stated that this project does not put in place Pelican Hills Road, it only makes the traffic worse. He also stated that the housing shortage needs to be addressed He stated that this project will make the housing imbalance in Newport Beach even worse. He stated that the original master plan proposed two freeways to service it. He stated that this plan is now being proposed to be expanded, back to the ori- ginal plan, but without the freeways to service it. Commissioner Beek requested that the fiscal: impact report not be confined to the fiscal'im- pacts on the City of Newport Beach, but the entire region. He stated that this should in- clude fiscal, traffic, airport and housing impacts. Commissioner Thomas stated that Commissioner Beek point may be extreme, but may also be appropriate from a housing standpoint. He suggested that 0 1181111 -15 �MISSIONERS J April 9, 1981 MINUTES Ego ;fin 0 W w 3 1 City of Newport Beach OVA the SCAG figures and fair share housing model be reviewed. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the City of Newport Beach is in the process of developing their own general plan amendment to the housing element which will be applicable to the City. He stated that this particular amend- ment will be heard before the Planning Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Beek stated that he is requesting that the fiscal impact reflect the expenses that the employees require, as well as the income. He stated that there should be an average figure as to what the public services cost for each person. Motion X Motion was made that the fiscal impact report be prepared to indicate the costs of the employees who work in the project, regardless of where they live. The costs of these public services and housing should not be confined to the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner Allen referred to the letter from Planning and Research in the EIR and stated.that this letter requests that the EIR address the impacts, including economic, on other localities of providing housing for employment opportunities generated in Newport Beach. Commissioner Balalis stated that he can not under stand why fiscal impact reports of such a broad nature are necessary, and of what value this information will be to the Commission when it is obtained. In response to'a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Talarico referred to Page 14 of the comments and responses and read to the Commission the response to the State Clearinghouse which discussed the housing issue and a review of the County's Community Analysis Area. Ayes X X Commissioner Beek's motion was now voted on, Noes X X. which MOTION FAILED. Abstain -16- • x w April 9, 1981 In i "MINUTES 001*4 Motion Mtion was made to not consider the fiscal impact Ayes X report, as it is only one sided, which MOTION Noes 11X1X1Xf1X1X1FA0ILED. Motion X Motion was made to continue these items to the All Ayes X X X X X X Planning Commission Meeting of April 23, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:10 pm. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that staff may have a problem obtaining all of the information that has been requested by the Commission, by the next meeting. Moon K Motion was made to reconsider the previous Ayes X K X X motion, which MOTION CARRIED. Noes X X After considerable discussion by the Commission, the following motions were made: Motion X Motion was made to continue Item No. 1, General Ayes X X X X X.Plan Amendment 80 -3 to the meeting of May 7 Noes X 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion X Motion was made to continue Item No. 2, the All Ayes X X X YX X X Traffic Study to the meeting of May 7, 1981; which MOTION CARRIED. April 9, 1981 r$ 5 o O 9= Gtv of Review of grading and tion with residential nutronic Ford Planned ZONE: P -C t Beach silt controls development in Community. in conjunc- the Aero- OWNER: J. M. Peters and Company, Inc., Newport Beach MINUTES Commissioner Thomas asked staff if the original approved permit provided for a million-cubic yards of cut and fill. He stated that the.ori- ginal EIR and response from the consultant indicated only 650,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. He stated that a million cubic yards is significantly higher than what is indicated in the EIR. He explained the purpose and intent of the Ordinance and stated that the intent of this Ordinance has not been fulfilled by this project. • Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that based upon a review of the Ordinance, the Com- mission does not have jurisdiction over this matter. He stated that the Grading Engineer has discretion as to whether or not the applicant is in compliance. He stated that the only appeal would be to the City Council. Commissioner Thomas stated that the Commission has a public purpose and should make an appeal to the City Council for their determination, based upon the Commission's findings. In response to 'a question posed by Commissioner' Beek, Commissioner Thomas stated that there is deposition located in the stream course below the project, which will eventually end up in the Bay. Commissioner Beek stated that it may be appro- priate to recommend that the City Council trans- fer money out of the bond and into the 208 0 11111111 -18- INDEX ENTATIVE (Discussion ted CUM/VMISSIUNtKJ April 9, 1981 MINUTES a o W W D 3 y City of Newport Beach L CALL IINDEX project for dredging the.Bay. Mr. Burnham;statei that the developer has complied with all appli- cable ordinances and therefore, the City Council could not legally do th'i's. Mr. Burnham stated that the remedy is to change the grading con- trols as adopted by the City of.Newport Beach. Commissioner. Beek stated that regardless of the remedy, his interpretation of the Ordinance is to ensure that any silt be cleaned up. Commissioner Thomas stated that the developer has violated the conditions of the tentative tract because a million cubic yards were graded, rather than the approved 650,000 cubic yards. He suggested that this item be continued until this can be discussed in more detail with the project developer. The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Faulkner, resident of.Corona del Mar, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Faulkn • stated that he had visited the site after the last heavy rain and there was no trace of silt in the Bay ,from this construction site. He also stated that he has pictures to prove his finding. Commissioner Allen concurred with the comments of Commissioner Thomas and stated that the.EIR indicates only 650,000 cubic yards of_cut and fill. Commissioner Beek referred to the Siltation and Grading Committee which was formed by the City over a year ago. He stated that this Committee studied the problem and recommended standards concerning the development of .silt retention basins. He stated that.at that time, staff felt that the standards were of _a technical nature and recommended that a consultant be hired. He asked if these standards are now being incor- porated into the 208 Project and if.not, how these standards are proceeding. -19- C1 COMMISSIONERS April 9, 1981 MINUTES o x 5n Planning Director Hewicker stated that he will obtain a response from Mr. Lorman, the City's Grading Engineer, for the next meeting, along with a response for Commissioner Thomas and Commissioner Allen's concerns. Chairman Haidinger suggested that this item not be continued, in that the Grading Engineer has advised the Commission that there is not a : problem. He stated that the answer as to how much grading was approved, can be handled verbally by staff at the next meeting. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker stated that it must first be determined how much grading was approved in the original grading permit. Then, the difference must be determined as to the: grading plan envisioned at the time of approval by the Planning Commission, and the plan in. which the grading permit was issued. INDEX • The consensus of the Commission was that the staff report back verbally to the Commission at the next meeting. Request to approve a Final Map to create one Item #4 parcel of land so as to permit the construc- tion of a residential condominium project on FINAL MAP the property. LOCATION: A, portion of Lot 818, First 11018 Addition to the Newport Mesa Tract, located on the north- westerly side of Superior Avenue, APPROVED southwesterly of Placentia Avenue in the West Newport Triangle. CONDI- TTWL L Y ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: George J. Heltzer Co. OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: James J. Brennan, Inc., Orange -20- s xCU m In x w April 9, 1981 Of MINUTES Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the drainage report as requested by the Public Works.Department has been completed to its satisfaction and that the conditions of approval on the Final. Map are now acceptable. Motion X Motion was made to approve the Final Map of All Ayes X X X X X' Tract No. 11018 with the following conditions of approval, and transmit said Final Map to the City Council, which MOTION CARRIED: CONDITIONS: 1. Sewer lines, connections and structures shall be of the type and installed in locations meeting the approval of the City Public Works Department and Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2. The on -site components of the system for the disposal • of sewage shall comply with all laws administered by the City Public Works Department and the Management of Costa Mesa Sanitary District. n U 3. A comprehensive soils engineering report conforming to all the requirements of the City Grading Ordinance and the City Grading Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by said City Grading Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. The report shall include but not be limited to a, discussion.of regional seismicity and seismic phenomena affecting the site, and recommendations dealing with anticipated seismic effects on the develop- ment. The report shall also include evaluation of pot - tentially expansive soils and recommended construction procedures and /or design criteria to minimize.the effect of these soils on the proposed development. The City Grad- ing Engineer shall certify to the Planning Director that this condition has been met prior to the issuance of a building permit. Lot drainage shall conform to the standards of the Grading Engineer and the Grading Ordinances. Graded pads shall be designed to drain in a manner meeting the approval of said Grading Engineer. -21- INDEX COMMISSIONERS �L 151 i l w April 9, 1981 MINUTES City of Newp ort Beach IWILL CALL INDEX 4. Prior to the approval of or issuance of a Building per- mit, the project developer shall provide written evidence to the City Environmental Coordinator, that a certified .archaeologist and paleontologist have been notified and in- vited or retained to.be on -site during grading or other significant ground disturbing activity. The archaeologist shall establish procedures for cultural /scientific re- source surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer procedures for temporarily halt- ing or re- directing work to permit the sampling, identifi- cation, and evaluation of the artifacts or fossils, as appropriate. The archaeologist shall re- survey the pro- perty after grubbing and prior to grading. If cultural/ scientific features are discovered, the archaeologist and paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City Environmental Coordinator. If the cultural /scientific features are found to be signifi- cant, the cultural /scientific resource observer shall de- termine appropriate actions in cooperation with the pro- ject developer, which ensure that the resources will not be destroyed before exploration and or salvage. These • actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Environmental Coordinator. The paleo observer shall sub- mit a letter for approval to the City Environmental Co- ordinator, regarding observation during grading. 5. Prior to recordation of the map, water improvement plans shall be approved by the City Fire Marshall for fire protection, and financial security posted for the install- ation of same. The adequacy and reliability of the water system design, location of valves, and distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluated in accordance with Insur- ance Services Office suggested standards contained in the "Grading Schedule for Municipal Fire Protection ". 6. Prior to the completion of an application for building permits for combustible construction, evidence that a wate supply for fire protection is available shall be submitted to the City Fire Marshall. 0 11111111 -22 COMMISSIONERS April 9, 1981 MINUTES 5. City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX 7. Prior to clearance for building permits, a site plan delineating the capacity, number and location of all pro- posed solid waste collection areas shall be submitted to the General Services Director for review and acceptance a shall be approved by the General Services Director, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 8. The residential lot and the dwelling thereon shall be sound attenuated for present and projected noise exposures, which shall be the energy sum of all noise impacting the project, so as -not to exceed an exterior standard of 65 CNEL. In addition, the maximum interior sound levels due to intrusive sounds shall not exceed 55 dB(A) for railroad noise or 65 dB(A) for aircraft noise. The design level shall be determined by calculating .the energy average of the maximum levels of the loudest 30% of intrusive sounds occurring during a 24 -hour period. An accredited expert or authority in the field of acoustics shall submit evi- dence in accordance with the following procedure which certifies that the aforementioned standards will be satis- • fied in a manner which complies with zoning regulations: a. Prior to recordation of a final map or to issuance of any building permits, an acoustical analysis report and appropriate mitigation plans shall be submitted to the Director of the City Building Department. • The report shall describe in detail the exterior noise environment and shall include details of the structural design required to satisfy the exterior and, optionally, interior noise standards. Director of the City Building Department will review and verify the exterior environment- al noise data and the proposed attenuation measures. b. If not included in the report under (a) above, the details of structural design required to satisfy the interior noise standards shall be submitted to the Director of the City Building Department, upon application for build ing permits. Prior to issuance of building permits, satis- factory evidence shall be submitted to the Director of the City Building Department, which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report have been incorporated into the design of the pro- ject. -23- April 9, 1981 a " a w City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX 9. The subject property shall be landscaped, equipped for irrigation and improved in accordance with a plan processed as stated below: a. Detailed Plan - Prior to clearance for issuance of any building permit, a detailed landscape plan shall be submit - ted to and approved. by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department. Said plan shall contain in detail all items of the preliminary plan and, in addition to detailed planting irrigation, and other landscape materials, shall include screening and fencing construction proposals showing size, location, type and other pertinent information. This.plan shall be based on approved Fire Protection, Health, grading, tract map, and other approved plans. b. Installation Certification - Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, said improvements shall be installed and shall be certified by a licensed landscape architect as having been installed in accordance with the • approved detailed plans. Said certification shall be furnished in writing to the Planning Department for their official records. 10. Prior to clearance for issuance of any building permits, CC & Rs or other method procedure which will guarantee the continued management and maintenance on a unified basis of all landscaping, off- street parking facilities, exterior lighting utilities, and other common facilities shall be submitted to an approved by the City Attorney, and shall then be recorded prior to issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy. Included in said CC & Rs or other method or procedure shall be a provision that will permit the installation of solar heating systems subject to the applicable zoning district regulations, the Uniform Build- ing Code and associated ordinances, and reasonable archi- tectural review by the architectural review committee. Further, future amendments regarding all items specified by the provisions shall .not be valid until they have been approved by the City Attorney and recorded. • 1111111 -24- April 9, 1981 M Beach MINUTES I L L CALL I I I I J i l l INDEX F 11. The following improvements shall be designed and con- structed in accordance with plans and specifications meet- ing the approval of the Public Works Department. a. The water distribution system and appurtenances which shall also conform to applicable laws and adopted regula- tions enforced by the City Fire Marshall and County Health Officer. b. Public street and private driveway improvements side- walks, underground utilities(including electrical and tele- phone),street lights and mailboxes. c.. All provisions for surface drainage and all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm run- off. 12. The driveways shall be constructed per OCEMA Standard Plan 210 in a manner meeting the approval of the Public . Works Department. 13. Vehicular access rights to Superior Avenue shall be offered for dedication to the City of Newport Beach, except for approved access location, and notes to this effect shall be lettered on the final map. 14. The final recorded tract map shall contain a note reading as follows: "The private driveways constructed within this tract shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the developer, its successors or assigns. The City of Newport Beach shall have no responsibility therefor." 15: Adequate sight distance shall be provided at the street intersection. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the building plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, to assure compliance. 16. if determined necessary by the Public Works Department, a letter of consent, in a form suitable for recording, shall be obtained from the downstream property owners for drain- age diversions and /or concentrations. -25- COMMISSIONERS April 9, 1981 MINUTES o = F w City of Newport Beach PWLCALLI III III I INDEX 17. The developer shall submit to the Public Works De- partment, detailed drainage studies indicating how the tract grading in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems including applicable swales, channels, street flows; catch basins, storm drains and flood water retarding will,allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall run -off which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100 -year flood. 18. The subdivider shall maintain the entire project area in a neat and orderly manner until such time as responsibility therefore is transferred to the homeowners association or another responsible body. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. James Parker, attorney re- presenting the applicants, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Parker described to the Com- mission the background and nature of this reques -26- • Request to permit the resubdivision of,two existing parcels of.land into three lots for Item #5 . single family residential development. LOCATION: A portion of.Lot 28, Newport Heights and Lot 20, Tract No. 1702,'located at 647 Irvine RESUB- DIVISION DIVIS1 NO. 671 Avenue and 2201 Holly Lane, on the westerly side of.Irvine (Revised) Avenue between Holly Lane and Margaret Drive in Newport Heights. APPROVED ZONE: R -1 CONDI- TTWL L Y APPLICANT: Paul Herrick, Costa Mesa OWNERS: Robert F. McGiffen and Florence M. Vallejo;.Newport.6each The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. James Parker, attorney re- presenting the applicants, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Parker described to the Com- mission the background and nature of this reques -26- • April 9, 1981 MINUTES K n m a HE 3 City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Parker stated that the development of the vacant parcel into two single family dwellings will be a benefit to the neighborhood. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Parker stated that this request constitutes the apex of the various proposals that have been made on this site in the past. Motion X Motion was made for denial of Resubdivision No. 671, subject to the findings of Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Beek stated that this area contains a hodgepodge of developments. He stated that lot splitting may be appropriate, in this par- ticular case, to provide for additional housing needs in Newport Beach. Commissioner Balalis stated that this subdivision was originally proposed to be split lengthwise. He stated that the applicant has since made • every effort to resolve this problem and has revised his request. Ayes X Commissioner McLaughlin's motion for denial was Noes ' X X X now voted on, which MOTION.FAILED. Motion X Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No. 671, Ayes. X X X X subject to the findings and conditions of Noes X Exhibit "A" as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is .satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That if the exception were denied, the petitioner would be deprived of a sub- stantial property right enjoyed by others in the area. • -27- April 9, 1981 MINUTES n D N. City of Newport Beach 4. That the granting of this exception is com- patible with the objectives of the regula- tions governing light, air and the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare. 5. That the proposed resubdivision is in con- formance with the General Plan, and that the proposed development is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in said plan. 6. That there are special circumstances or con- ditions affecting the property in that the proposed Parcel 1 is only 7' short of the 80' minimum length and Parcel 2 is only 3' short of the 80' minimum lot length, with both parcels providing the minimum land area of 5,000 sq. ft. 7. That the granting of an exception to the • Subdivision.Code will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the pro- perty is located. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit shall have indi- vidual sewer laterals and water services. 4. That a minimum 20 foot wide easement for ingress, egress and utilities be provided across Parcel 1 for the benefit of Parcel 2 BEIM • INDEX COMMISSIONERS to t' :3 0 3 � yo In x 41 7 April 9,1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach INDEX Request to permit the construction of a three- Item #6 story retail.- office complex in the Mariners' Mile Specific Plan Area that exceeds the basic height limit.within the 26 /35.foot Height USE PERMI Limitation District. The approval of a use N0. 1941 permit is also required inasmuch as the project exceeds the 0.5 times the buildable area of the (Amended) site. LOCATION: A portion of Lot F, Tract 919, Contin located at 2912 West Coast High- to Apr way, westerly of Riverside Avenue 3, on Mariners' Mile. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: F. Earl Mellott, A.I.A., Anaheim OWNER: Said Shokrian, Newport Beach Staff requested that this item be continued to the meeting of.April 23,.1981, so that the archi- tect for the project have more time to revise the pla s. Motion X 11 Motion was made to continue this item to the All Ayes X X X X X Planning Commission Meeting of April 23, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. Request to permit the temporary use of relo- Item #7 catable buildings as office facilities on the Aeronutronic Ford site. USE PERM LOCATION: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 79 -717 NO. 1979 (Resubdivision No. 629), located on the northerly side of Ford Road between MacArthur Boulevard APPROVED CONDI- TrWLLY and Jamboree Road on the Ford Aeronutronics property. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation, Aeronutronics Divi- sion, Newport Beach OWNER: Irvine Company, Newport Beach • IIIIIIII -29- April 9, 1981 MINUTES x In w City of Newport Beach INDEX The public hearing opened on connection with this item and Mr. T. F. Morrissey, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Morrissey explained the nature of this request. He stated that the subject relocatable buildings will be utilized on a part time basis. In response to a question posed by Chairman Haidinger, Mr. Morrissey stated that they are requesting that these temporary buildings be utilized until such time as a permanent building can be constructed. He stated that the use per- mit is conditioned to terminate at the end of three years. Motion Motion was made for approval of Use.Permit No. All Ayes X X X X 1979, subject to the findings and conditions. of Exhibit "A" as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact and that it is in substantial conformance with the Aeronutronic Ford Certified Environmental.Impact Report. 3. Adequate parking is provided on -site in conjunction with the proposed development, and the change in traffic will not adversely affect the existing circulation system. The approval of Use Permit No. 1979 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 neigh - borhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 0 1 111 1111 -30- COMMISSIONERS April 9, 1981 x -I w. N It City of NeWDC CONDITIONS: 1. That development conformance with tions submitted. MINUTES -. r shall be in substantial the plot plan and eleva- 2. That this permit shall terminate at the end of three years unless extended by the Modi- fications Committee. At the termination of the permit, the buildings shall be removed and the site restored. Request to permit alterations and additions to an existing single family residence that is nonconforming in that the existing structure encroaches to within l' -6" of the south side property line and to within 2' -6" of the north side property line where the Code requires 3' • side yard setbacks. The proposed garage en- croaches 4' -9" into the required 5' rear setback and the second floor addition encroaches 2' -2" into the required 2' -6" rear setback for second floor development on the 70 foot deep lot. LOCATION: Lot 48, Block C of Newport Bay Tract, located at 322 Alvarado Place on the easterly side of Alvarado Place, between East Bay Avenue and Edgewater Avenue, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -3 APPLICANT: Archi +Tekton, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Mr. & Mrs. Richard Smith, Newport Beach Staff advised that the property :oivner..has requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20,,1981, due to his protracted illness and recuperation. Motion Motion was made to continue this item to the All Ayes X X X X Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 1981 which MOTION CARRIED. -31- INDEX tem MODIFI- (Revised) Continued to August 20, 1981 COMMISSIONERS ] April 9, 1981 MINUTES 5. yyo ((mpp R Dp 7 � N 7C tn 7 %l FWL CALL I 11 I Jill I INDEX 0 0 Motion All Ayes E Request to consider Amendment No. 1 to the Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. LOCATION: 4490 Von Karman Avenue, Koll Center Newport ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Koll Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Aetna Life Insurance, Co., Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Mike Lewis, repr.ese.nting The Koll Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Lewis stated that they will not be constructing the proposed addition for occupancy until mid 1982. He stated that space in an adjacent build- ing will solve the occupancy requirements for six to eight months, over what is contained in the phasing plan. Chairman Haidinger asked what the requirements are for Phase II. Mr. Lewis stated that the phasing plan allows construction of additional office space in two phases. He stated that these are also conditioned with road improvements in the area. He stated.that most likely these im- provemehts will be completed in 1982. Commissioner Allen asked if .the road improvements will be in place prior-to the.requested develop- ment. Mr. Lewis stated that this is the antici- pation of the developers involved. X Motion was made for approval of .Amendment No. 1 X X X X X to the Koll /.Aetna Traffic Phasing Plan, with the findings as follows, which MOTION.CARRIEO: FINDINGS: 1. That subsequent changes in the project will not require.revisions to the Certified Final EI'R. -32- . Item FFIC April 9, 1981 In MINUTES That no new significant environmental impacts not considered in the Certified Final EIR were found. That no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken. 4. That no new information of substantial im- portance related to the project has become available. 5. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport. 6. That based on the Phasing Plan and surroundin information submitted therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacit • of affected intersections. 7. That the applicant has taken into considera- tion in the preparation of his plan charac- teristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials . or through intersections in the least con- gested direction. Request to consider an off -site parking agree- ment for a portion of the required parking spaces in conjunction with the Beachcomber Restaurant facility. LOCATION: Portion of Lot H, Tract No. 919, located at 2633 West Coast Highway, on the south side of.West Coast Highway, westerly of Tustin Avenue on Mariner's Mile, (Restau- rant Site). ZONEt SP -5 • 11111111 -33- INDEX tem #10 PPROVED LY COMMISSIONERS April '9, 1981 MINUTES �x yyo M 3 � W 7C -vi of Newport Beach R e L L CALL X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX APPLICANT: Bo Bentley, Newport Beach OWNER: James F. Parker, Newport Beach The discussion opened in connection with this item and Ms. Bo Bentley, owner of the Beachcomber Restaurant, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Bentley stated that this restaurant is mainly a foot traffic restaurant. She stated that she had performed a survey amongst the restaurant patrons and the survey indicated that out of the 146 signatures obtained, 68 customers were.walk- ins, and the others either arrived by bikes, boats or carpooled to the restaurant. Mr. Steve Coatsworth appeared before the Commis- sion and requested that this item be approved, so that the restaurant use may remain. Motion X Motion was made to approve the Off -Site Parking All Ayes X XK X X X Agreement for the Beachcomber Restaurant with • the following findings and conditions of approval which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the off -site parking spaces are located so as to be useful for the restaurant employees and patrons. 2. The off -site parking spaces will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding areas. Adequate pedestrian crossing facilities exist providing a safe means for employees and patrons to travel to and from the off =site parking location and the sub - ject restaurant facility. The applicant has provided a letter indi- cating the property owner's intentions to allow the use of the Shell Service Station . site for a portion of the required restau- rant parking spaces. • 11111111 -34- April 9, 1981 MINUTES C �' n K 9 1 City of Newport Beach INDEX CONDITIONS: That an off -site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council guaranteeing that a minimum of 7 parking spaces shall be provided on the Shell service station site located at 2800 West Coast Highway for the Beachcomber Restaurant use. 2. That said agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder's Office as required by Code. 3. That employees of the restaurant use shall be required to park on the approved off- site parking location. 4. That unless an agreement providing for a longer period of time is obtained, the applicant shall submit evidence to the Modifications Committee at the end of the 3 year lease period that said agreement has been renewed, or the restaurant use shall be terminated. 5. That a sign shall be installed adjacent to the entrance of the restaurant facility that identifies the location of the off -site parking lot for customers. Said sign shall be approved by the Planning Department. I ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Balboa Peninsula - Traffic Problem Commissioner B.alalis requested a report from the Public Works Department relating to the in- creasing traffic problem on the Balboa Peninsula during the weekends. 9 n 2 WE CD d 7 N 7C fA April 9, 1981 Of Beach MINUTES INDEX Motion All Ayes Motion X X X X W X X Y Excused Absence Motion was made for an excused absence for Com- missioner Cokas from the Planning Commission Meetings of.Aprsil 23, 1981, and May 7,1981, which MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No..562 set for public hearing Motion was made to set for public hearing on All Ayes X X H X X May 7, 1981, Amendment No. 562, relating.to the deletion of the reference to the "two livable story" limit for residential construction in the R -1 and R -1.5 Districts, which MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:35 p.m. George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach • -36