Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/1984Present Absent n Motion Ayes Absent COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (yQNUTES PLACE: City Council Chambers e x TIME: 7:30 p.m. m DATE: April 19, }19884 ac CILY of CALI III Jill INDEX x Ix x E%- OFFICIO 14MFJLS PRESENT James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert D. Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Craig Bluell, Senior Planner Joanne Baade, Secretary to the.Mayor /Administration * r • APPROVAL OF TEE MINUTES Minutes of April 5, 1984 Motion was made for approval of the Planning Commission minutes of April 5, 1984 with the correction that the. motion concerning Use Permit No. 3094 (Page 12) be revised to reflect that said motion was made by Commissioner Goff, rather than Commissioner %urlander, as was indicated in the minutes. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE Planning Director Hewicker advised that James B. Wood,, property owner of the Hemingway's Restaurant property, has requested a continuance of Use Permit No. 1778. Mr. Hewicker noted that it has not been the policy of the Planning Commission to continue applications when the property owner, rather than the applicant, cannot be present. The Planning Commission concurred that Use Per- mit No. 1778 should not be continued. • IIIIIIII "' Minutes of, April 5. . 1984 Request for contin- uance of U.P. 1778/ Denied X r • E April 19, 1984 0 .� Use Permit No. 3081 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a four -story medical office building and related four -level parking structure that exceed the 32 foot basic height limit in the Proposed 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the proposed on- site parking spaces to be located on the roof of the pro- posed parking structure. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off- street parking spaces. LOCATION: Tract No. 11018, located at 1455 Superior Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Superior Avenue, between Placentia Avenue and Hospital Road, in the West Newport Triangle area. ZONE: R -3 (2178) APPLICANT: Heltaer Enterprises, Los Angeles OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Dave Neish, of Urban Assist, Inc., appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant and review- ed the background of the application. Mr. Neish advised that the Applicant is in concurrence with the Findings and Conditions of Approval recommended in the staff report. In addition, Mr. Neish advised that the Applicant has become aware that the residents to the northerly property line of the proposed parking structure were concerned with the proposed 5' setback. Consequently, Mr. Neish advised that the Applicant now proposes to relocate the parking structure in a more southerly direction so as to allow a minimum 10' setback in that location. Mr. Neish indicated that the Applicant would be agreeable to this plan revision being made a Condition of Approval. Mr. Neish brought notice to Condition of Approval No. 13, which provides that the gross structural area of the office building shall not exceed 0.8 times the buildable area of the site. Mr. Neish suggested that the Condition be -2- Motion • Ayes Nays Absent • �x � o S s x April 19, 1984 DES expanded to provide that the gross structural area of the office building shall not exceed 0.8 times the buildable area of the site, or 43,470 sq. ft. Ronald Dick, 843 West 15th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission and questioned the nature of the pro- posed landscaping. Staff responded that Condition of Approval No. 7 requires that landscape plans be subject to the review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recre- ation Department and the Public Works Department. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3081, sub- ject to the Findings and Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A "., with the following revisions: 1) That an additional condition be added which requires that the parking struc- ture be set back 10' from the northerly property line; and 2) That Condition No. 13 be expanded to provide that the gross structural area of the office building shall not exceed 0.8 times the buildable area of the site, or 43,470 sq. ft. Commissioner Goff stated that he would oppose the motion inasmuch as he felt the project establishes an undesirable precedent for three -story buildings along the west side of Superior, felt that the project is too intense, and disagreed with the statement contained in Finding No. 8. The motion on the floor was then voted on and CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3081 was thereby approved, subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. That a Negative Declaration was prepared and accepted for the proposed project in compliance with the Cali - fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this pro- jest. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the pro- posed project, all feasible mitigation measures dis cussed in the environmental document have been incor- porated into the proposed project. -3- E • COMAMSIONERS April 19, 1984 MINUTES Fn x 3 3° n' City of 'e v l +vr l Beach 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have.been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval. 5. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have a sig- nificant adverse impact on the environment. 6. The increased building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 7. The increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 8. The increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being cr between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. 9. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. 10. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the pro- posed project is located, except those items requested in conjunction with the proposed modifications. 11. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 12. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements. 13. The proposed use permit to exceed the basic height limit and for roof -top parking and modification for compact parking spaces will not, under the circum- stances of this 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 -4- April 19, 1984 iNUNUTES FM E y s m c °$ �dx6a C VI ity t Beach 5 T a 4 it 40 O property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legis- lative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 14. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 15. The proposed number of compact car spaces constitutes 25 percent of the parking provided which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applications. 16. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 17. That the proposed development will generate an • Increase in daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a fair share assessment to mitigate the increased traffic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the cumulative affect of additional traffic generated by office development. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections, except as noted below. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to com- pletion of the public improvements. 4. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. • -5- �x o m e a t i t • U April 19, 1984 MINUTES That a certificate of correction be filed with the Orange County Recorder's office, removing all refer- ences thereon to Tract No. 11018 for residential condominium purposes and removal of a secondary private drive on Superior Avenue, prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. That the intersection of the private drive with Superior Avenue be designed to provide sight distance per City Std.- 110-L. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non - critical loca- tions, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 7. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and Public Works Department. 8. That the existing storm drain junction structure located in Superior Avenue be reconstructed; that displaced curb, gutter and sidewalk in Superior A be reconstructed and that all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. That a hydrol and approved with a master facilities fo issuance of modifications drain, water by the study developer. ogy and hydraulic s by the Public Works plan of water, sew r the on -site impr any grading or build or extensions to t and sewer systems s shall be the respo tudy be prepared Department, along er and a ovements ing perm he exist hown to risibility torm drain prior to its. Any ing storm be required of the 10. That the sewer be constructed per Costa Mesa Sani- tary District standards and that a letter be pro- vided to the City prior to issuance of any building or grading permits from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District stating that they have adequate capacity for the development. 11. That all applicable conditions of approval for Tract No. 11018 be fulfilled. MOIN �x f �$ � m • 0 April 19, 1984 M NUrES 12. That the private drive at Superior Avenue be combined with the existing adjacent driveway so that there is only one entrance and exit at this point; that the portion of the private drive measured from the southerly property line to the proposed curb be at least 16 feet wide between Superior Avenue and the proposed garage structure driveway and be 16 feet wide between the proposed garage structure drive and the westerly property line; that the private drive be improved with pavement within the subject project boundaries along with the construction of curb, gutter and minimum 5 foot wide sidewalk along the northerly side of the private drive from Superior Avenue to the westerly property line; and that a new drive apron be constructed on Superior Avenue per Std.- 161 -L, with a width of approximately 32 feet so as to include the adjacent private drive that is to be combined with the subject project drive. The design of the driveway is subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. 13. That the gross structural area of the office building shall not exceed 0.8 times the buildable area of the site, or 43,470 sq. ft. 14. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Superior Avenue and Medical Lane and adjoining properties. 15. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 16. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 17. That a minimum of one parking space /250 sq. ft. of gross floor area shall be provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 18. That project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. All parking lot lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. -7- � r a = m O � 0 0 April 19, 1984 19. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be desig- nated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 20. The layout of the surface and structure parking . shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. MINUTES 21. Parking structure ramps shall be limited to a maximum of 5% grade where they provide direct access to any space. All other ramps shall not exceed 15 %. 22. A double yellow center line shall be provided in the main aisle. 23. Compact parking spaces shall not exceed 25% of the parking.spaces provided. 24. Prior to issuance of any Building or Grading Permit, the applicant shall pay Fair -Share for circulation system improvements and noise walls. The calculation of Fair -Share shall give credit for the previously approved residential project. The contribution will be based on the actual use of the building using the formulas established by the City. 25. That the parking structure be set back 10' from the northerly property line. -8- r C o p e 44 e a 33 Fr io' +: • April 19, 1984 A. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) MINUTES Item #2 Request to consider a traffic study in conjunction with Traffic the construction of a multiple use development containing Stud and 51,463 sq. ft. ± of gross floor area. U,P, 3086 1�7 B. Use Permit No. 3086 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a multiple use devel opment on property located in the "Recreation Marine Com- mercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan area. The proposal includes: a request to construct a building which exceeds the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District and exceeds .5 times the buildable area of the site; a request to establish.a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment; a request to permit non - marine related professional and business office type uses; a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact and tandem parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking requirement; a request to allow the use of ad off -site parking location for a portion of the required off - street parking; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Portions of Lots G and H, Tract No. 919, located at 2901 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, between Riverside Avenue and Newport Boulevard in Mariner's Mile (Development Site); Lots 7 -9 and a portion of an aban- doned alley in Tract No. 1133,.located on the southeasterly corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street, in Mariner's Mile (Off -site parking location). ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Senator D. C. Anderson, Honolulu OWNER: Same as applicant -9- Both Approved Condi- tionally Notion Ayes Absent rx rq m a y x 1x Ix April 19, 1984 57 I I MINUTES The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Joseph Lancor, Architect, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Lancor discussed the background of the application and reviewed the project renderings, focusing on the variations between the original and revised plans. Senator Anderson, Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and concurred with the revised Conditions of Approval recommended by staff. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to accept the Environmental Document and approve the Traffic Study, subject to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhibit "A ", as modified by the supplemental staff report, which MOTION CARRIED. A. EWHRONMSNTAL DOCUMENT Findings: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guide- lines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the pro- posed project, all feasible mitigation measures dis- cussed in the environmental document have been incor- porated into the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval. 5. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have-a sig- nificant adverse impact on the environment. -10- ra COMM6SIOPERS April 19, 1984 M(IVMS A 7C e c ss ■ a 3= a i G4 of Newport Beach 0 CALL INDEX • Motion .t x Ayes x Absent 1xi 0 The findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the action taken on the Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 3086. B. TRAFFIC STUDY Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary - modified', or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of two critical intersections, but will not add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at the critical intersections which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of .90 or lees. Condition: 1. The project shall contribute to Fair -Share for Circu- lation System improvements and noise walls, to be established by Ordinance adopted by the City Council. Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3086, subject to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhi' "A ", as modified by the supplemental staff report, which MOTION CARRIED. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3086 Findings: 1. The increased building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. -11- n �t f o m TO s • • April 19, 1984 NUNMES 2. The increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 3. The increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing develop- ments or public spaces. 4. The structure will.have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. S. The development will provide for both public physical and visual access to the bay within the limits that public safety is insured and private property pro- tected. 6. That the design of the development or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 7. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 8. The proposed restaurant will not have any significant environmental impact, providing that parking demands are met. 9. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 10. The off -site parking area is located so as to be useful to the proposed restaurant use. 11. Parking on such off -site lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 12. That the restaurant site and the off -site parking area are in the same ownership. 13. That the hours of operation of the proposed restaur- ant facility, boatyard, office and retail uses are such as to allow joint use of the on -site and off - site parking areas. -12- r C m m CC m Cr J G p P L • April 19, 1984 MINUTES 14. The proposed number of compact car spaces constitutes 24% (twenty -four percent) of the parking requirements which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applications. 15. The proposed use of tandem and compact parking spaces and a valet parking service will not, under the circumstances of this 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 this Code. 16. The project will comply with all applicable. City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located, except those items requested in conjunction with the proposed modifi- cations. 17. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements. 18. That the proposed development will intensify the need for on -site, on- street and off -site parking in comparison to past and current uses of the develop- ment site. 19. That the City of Newport Beach has tentative plans to widen and /or restripe West Coast Highway which may result in loss of on- street parking and the applicant's proposed development adequately addresses anticipated parking needs for the permitted use. 20. That the proposed development will generate an increase in daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a fair share assessment to mitigate the increased traffic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the cumulative affect of additional traffic generated by commercial and office develop- ment. -13- � x f � o 0 • I" 1 l_J April 19, 1984 MINUTES 21. The approval of Use Permit No. 3086 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 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 plan, and eleva- tions except as noted below. 2. That valet parking service be provided at all times during the restaurant'sihours of operation. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from West Coast Highway and adjoining properties. 4. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to con- trol odors and smoke in accordance with Rule 50 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 5. That a washout area for the'restaurant trash con- tainers be provided in such a way as to insure direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or the storm drains. 6. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in acc ance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing C 7. That all restaurant employees shall park their vehicles in the off -site parking area. 8. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 9. That a minimum of one parking space /40 sq. ft. of "net public area" shall be provided for the restaur- ant use. -14- EX f r r m c % is s 0 r • • April 19, 1984 M MINUTES 10. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the public right- of-way be approved by the Public Works Depart - ment. 11. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, and the approval of the Planning Department. 12. The valet parking service shall not preclude the use of a portion of the independently accessible spaces by patrons wishing to park their own car. The self -park spaces shall be clearly designated. 13. That a maximum credit of four parking spaces shall be given for the proposed four guest dock facilities. Should the guest docks be used for any use other than guest docks for the restaurant, the owner shall be required to provide four parking spaces in a location meeting the approval of the Planning Commission, or reduce the net public area of the restaurant accord- ingly after 5:00 p.m. 14. That live entertainment in the restaurant shall be limited to a duo or trio, and shall be permitted only within the building with windows closed during performances. 15. That the Planning Commission may add or modify condi- tions of approval to this use permit for the res- taurant use, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 16. That a minimum of one parking apace /250 sq. ft, of net floor area for office use and one parking space per 250 sq. ft. gross floor area for retail use shall be provided in conjunction with the proposed develop- ment. 17. That project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. All parking lot lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. -15- 0 • April 19, 1984 MINUTES 18. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or sub - leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: a) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a com- plete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the John. Wayne Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 19. That the final design of on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Depart- ment prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 20. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be desig- nated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 21. The layout of the surface and structure parking shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 22. That the applicant record a Covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and its successors in interest in perpetuity to a combined floor area limitation of 0.80 times the buildable area on the two sites which make up the subject property in consideration -16- � x m Cr ?7c Ps April 19, 1984 MINUTES for the granting of the use permit to exceed the basic height limit. This Covenant shall continue in effect. until such time as the Newport Beach Planning Commis- sion, or the City Council on review, authorizes adds- tional development beyond this limitation by the approval of a Use Permit. 23. That a minimum clear setback of 45 feet be provided on the easterly property line. 24. The public access.easements shall have a minimum clear width of 10 feet. In addition, any structural encroachments over said easements shall be canti- levered and absent any vertical means of support. The height and design of any such cantilever shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director to ensure maximum light and feeling of open- ness. Additionally, the structural area on the ground floor where it interfaces with the public easement shall be designed and landscaped in such a way as to enhance, beautify and otherwise encourage the public use and enjoyment of the easement. 25. That boat delivery to the site be permitted only if an adequate median for Coast Highway can be designed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 26. The gross structural area of the building at 2901 West Coast Highway shall not exceed 0.95 times the buildable area of the site. 27. That 40% of all use area both within and outside of the building on the site, excluding the area devoted to the restaurant use, shall be incentive uses as provided in the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. 28. That the applicant shall record a Covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the Planning Director and City Attorney, binding the applicant and its successor in interest in perpetuity, limiting the use of the area described in Condition No. 27 above to uses satisfying the incentive use provisions of the certified Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. 29. That the hours of operation of the restaurant shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. -17- ;x oR ���cor April 19, 1984 0 \:��/0.S._i.... .� MINUTES 30. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 31. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory comple- tion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 32. That each building be served with individual water services and sewer laterals to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 33. That access to the site and the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. 34. That a condition survey of the existing bulkhead along the bay side of the property be made by a civil or structural engineer, and that the bulkhead be revised . and /or upgraded as necessary, in conformance with the recommendation of the condition survey and to the satisfaction of the Building Department and Marine Department to allow the construction on an under- ground parking structure adjacent to the bulkhead. The top of the bulkhead is to be a minimum of eleva- tion 9.00 above M.L.L.W. (6.27 MSL). 35. That the applicant shall agree that the proposed development will not increase the need for on- street parking along West Coast Highway and that the appli- cant agrees not to contest the removal of parking for the restriping or widening of West Coast High- way on the grounds ofloss of on- street parking. 36. That the landscaping plan be designed to provide eight distance for both vehicles on the street and bicycles on the sidewalk. The plans shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 37. That the unused drive depressions on West Coast High- way be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk; that the existing non - standard 12 foot wide sidewalk and curb and gutter along the West Coast Highway frontage be constructed along with relocating the existing catch basin.and.approximately 60 feet . of curb that is set back approximately 6 feet behind -18- s� 66666 0 • • April 19, 1984 M NUTES curb line; that the drive aprons along West Coast Highway be constructed per City Std. 166 -L; that the existing telephone lines along the West Coast High- way frontages of the site be undergrounded; and that all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportatio 38. That a 10- foot -wide easement be granted to the City along the bay frontage so as to provide unobstructed public access across the entire project. Said ease- ment shall be improved with a concrete sidewalk or other materials meeting the approval of the Public Works and Planning Departments. 39. That a 10- foot -wide storm drain easement or right -of- way along the westerly side of the property be dedi- cated to the City. A storm drain line having a maximum diameter of 36 inches is to be installed within the easement; with the cost of the storm drain to be borne by the City except for the proportioned cost attributable to site drainage, which shall be borne by the developer. The storm drain may be installed on supports inside the proposed parking structure. The design of the structure shall include provision for attaching the necessary supports, and the project Architect shall work with the Public Works Department to ensure a satisfactory design. The storm drain easement or right- of-way document shal: convey sufficient rights to enable the City to con- struct, maintain, and operate the drain; including access across the property to the easement. The document may include language holding the developer harmless from any liability due to the operation of the City storm drain. That a 10- foot -wide public access easement be provided along the westerly side of the project from the bay to approximately 110 feet in the direction of West Coast Highway in order to tie into the access easement on the adjacent property. 40. That a 12- foot - radius corner cutoff at the corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street be dedicated to the City prior to issuance of any building permits. 41. That 7- foot -wide sidewalk be constructed along the Avon Street frontage; that 12- foot -wide sidewalk be constructed along the Riverside Avenue frontage; . that the curb return be reconstructed with a 25 -foot radius.and a curb.access ramp at the corner of River- side Avenue and Avon Street; that an access ramp be -19- April 19, 1984 �x � r s m e °O g a s p s a � go o � o • MINUTES �a constructed at the alley; and that the deteriorated portions.of curb, gutter and drive depressions along Avon Street be reconstructed. 42. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the appli- cant shall provide an estimate of the potential for subsidence during subterranean phases of construc- tion, and shall identify potential impacts of any subsidence on surrounding structures and other improvements to the, satisfaction of the Planning and Building Departments of the City of Newport Beach. 43. If found necessary by the City of Newport Beach, based upon geotechnical information described above, the project applicant will be required to monitor the extent of subsidence during excavation and throughout dewatering of the site through placement of appropriate testing devices under the supervision and surveillance of a qualified soils engineer. 44. If found necessary by the City of Newport Beach, • based upon geotechnical information described above, the project applicant will be required to enter into an agreement and post a bond guaranteeing the repair of the public street system, utilities or other public property that might be damaged during the de- watering excavation process as well as other con- struction phases. 45. If found necessary by the City of Newport Beach, based upon geotechnical information described above, the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement and provide a policy of insurance guaran- i teeing the repair of all damage to private property ' caused by the dewatering excavation process as well as other construction phases. 46. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) per- mit shall be obtained from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 47. Treatment of extracted water shall be conducted in a manner and at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. . 48. Suspended solids (sand) shall be separated from ex- tracted water in accordance with applicable water quality standards and disposed.of at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach. -20- ` CCMAMI�51 April 19, 1984 MINUTES IX F � o m 3 ' • 49. Provision shall be made, as necessary, for the treat- ment of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering processes. 50. Drainage facilities and architectural features shall be designed to prevent runoff from entering the garage structure, to keep the garage floor slab dry from seepage and to remove oil and grease from wastewater prior to disposal to public drains. 51. Facilities for boat hauling and repair shall be designed in a manner to minimize the introduction of pollutants into Newport Bay to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 52. A system of barriers and overhead protection will.be required during construction to prevent debris from falling into Newport Bay or onto adjacent property and streets, and to protect pedestrian and bicycle circulation routes. 53. No street closures will be allowed during construc- tion. 54. Excavations will be shored by sheet piling placed by a method approved by the Planning and Building Depar ments of the City of Newport Beach. 55. A system of well points will be utilized to dewater the site for construction purposes. Additional well points will be placed in the center of the excavation to prevent a "quick" condition from developing during construction. 56. The relocation of public utilities will be coordina- ted and approved by local utility companies and pub- lic agencies, as appropriate. 57. Hours of construction involving truck operations will be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sundays. 58. All construction equipment and materials shall be stored on -site in a screened, fenced area. -21- F X r m a y 9 April 19, 1984 MINUTES 59. The perimeter of the project site shall be fenced to insure public safety. 60. A temporary eight - foot -wide pedestrian /bicycle walkway shall be provided at all times along West Coast Highway during the construction process. 61. Signing and lighting shall be provided for the bene- fit of pedestrian and bicycle circulation with the approval of the City of Newport Beach Planning Depar meat. 62. Truck traffic generated by site excavation, dewatering and concrete.pouring operations shall be routed in a manner approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning and Public Works Deparments. 63. Construction workers and other personnel shall be directed to utilize parking located on Site B (River side Avenue and Avon Street) during project construc- tion. 64. A waiver of City noise abatement regulations will be required in order to allow site dewatering and pour- ing of the basement slab. 65. If determined necessary by the City of Newport Beach Building Department, noise- producing equipment will be enclosed by barriers or baffled to reduce noise impacts. 66. Development of the.site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 67. A grading plan will include a complete plan for tem- porary and permanent drainage facilities, to mini- mize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other weather pollutants. 68. The grading permit will include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, and watering and sweeping programs designed to minimize impacts of haul operations.. 69. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to approval by the Building Department and a copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. -22- • 4P April 19, 1984 ;x r a H x C.Ity Of i eNwt Beach 3 y �$: d �o MINUTES 70. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer and based on recommenda- tions of a soils engineer and an engineering geolo- gist subsequent to completion of a comprehensive soils and geologic investigation of the site. Per- manent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard -size sheets shall be fur- nished to the Building Department. 71. The Fire Department shall review design plans to ensure adequate access and emergency exits. 72. The provision of adequate fire flow shall be reviewed by the Fire Department. 73. Structures shall be equipped with fire suppression systems as required by Code. 74. That the valet drop -off driveway be a minimum of 45- foot radius. with the proposed planter /fountain a maximum 12 -foot radius. 75. Final design of the project shall provide for the. . incorporation of water- saving devices for lavatories and other water -using facilities. 76. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. 77. The final layout and composition of surface and sub - terranean.parking shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. 78. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be desig- nated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engi- neer and the Planning Department. The quantity and design of such spaces shall comply with City Codes. 79. Parking arrangements during the construction period shall be approved by the City Planning Department and the Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading and /or building permits. 80. All on -site drainage shall be approved by the City Public Works Department. -23- It 4 40 n x r � 'o • m S April 19, 1984 MORMAJO OW M 81. The project shall contribute to Fair -Share for circulation system improvements and noise walls, to be established by Ordinance adopted by the City Council. MINUTES 82. A weekly cleanup program around the docks and pub- lic sidewalks shall be conducted on a regular basis. During construction, basins or other devices shall be installed to prevent waste from entering Newport Bay. 83. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a com- prehensive soils and foundation study will be pre- pared and approved by the Planning and Building Departments of the City of Newport Beach. 84. All buildings will conform to the Uniform Building Code and the City's seismic design standards. 85. The project is located within the Coastal Zone and will require State Coastal Commission approval, in addition to all necessary City approvals. 86. An Army Corps of Engineers permit (in addition to a Harbor Permit) shall be obtained prior to any alteration of bulkheads. 87. Any mechanical equipment and emergency power genera- tors shall be screened from view, and noise associa- ted with said structures shall be sound- attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property lines. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer and approved by the Building Department. 88. Prior to the occupancy of the building, the applicant shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 that adequate sewer capaci- ty is available to serve the project. 89. That a tentative parcel map be filed. -24- 4 7t P C 8 � m a is April 19, 1984 A. Amendment No. 600 (Continued Public Hearing) I Item #3 Request to amend the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan District so as to allow the construction of a cul -de -sac at the Amendment No. 600 westerly terminus of Avon Street, easterly of Santa Ana Avenue. The proposal also includes a request to amend por- Determined tions of Districting Maps Nos. 4 and 5 so as to reclassify to be un- a portion of the southerly half of unimproved Avon Street necessary (proposed to be vacated), between Santa Ana Avenue and a The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision point approximately 210.0 feet easterly of Santa Ana Aven Code so as to permit a parcel with less than 80 feet in from the SP -5 District (Mariners' Mile Specific Plan Area) depth, and to allow the construction of a cul-de -sac with to the R -1 District (Single - Family Residential). The a 32 -foot radius where a minimum 40 -foot radius is required extension of the 5 -foot front yard setback on Santa Ana AND Avenue and the 10 -foot front yard setback on Avon Street C. Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 7 (Discus- designated on said Districting Maps are also proposed, and sion the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Property located at the southerly one -half Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Per - of the unimproved portion of Avon Street, mit for the purpose of establishing project compliance between Santa Ana Avenue and a point for three additional single - family residential lots, pur- approximately 210.0 feet easterly of Santa suant to the administrative guidelines for the Implementa- Ana Avenue, measured along the southerly tion of the State Law relative.to low- and moderate - income boundary of unimproved Avon Street. Musing within the Coastal Zone. ZONE: SP -5 AND B. Resubdivision No. 767 (Continued Public Hearing) Resub di- vision Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land and a No. 767 portion of unimproved Avon Street (proposed for vacation) into four parcels for single - family residential purposes. Approved The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Condi- Code so as to permit a parcel with less than 80 feet in tionally depth, and to allow the construction of a cul-de -sac with a 32 -foot radius where a minimum 40 -foot radius is required AND C. Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 7 (Discus- Res. sion Coastal Dev. Per - Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Per - mit No. 7 mit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for three additional single - family residential lots, pur- Determined suant to the administrative guidelines for the Implementa- to be un- tion of the State Law relative.to low- and moderate - income necessary Musing within the Coastal Zone. -25- EX �xo• } • April 19, 1984 zi MINUTES LOCATION: A portion of Lot Z of the First Addition to the Newport Heights Tract, located at 2961 Cliff Drive, on the southeasterly corner of Cliff Drive and Santa Ana Avenue, in Newport Heights. ZONES: R -1 and SP -5 APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita, Newport Beach OWNER:' Helen Kreutzkamp, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Robin B. flamers and Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Rally Pulaski, Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and reviewed the background of the application, advising that the plans have been redesigned.in light of the Ad Hoc Mariners Mile Traffic Circulation Committee's recommendation that Avon Street be extended to Santa Ana Avenue. Mr. Pulaski stated that the merits of the project are well defined within the staff report. Hugo Hesse, 231 Santa Ana Avenue, appeared before the Plan. ning Commission and presented a petition signed by 100+ persons who reside within the area of Santa Ana Avenue. Mr. Hesse advised that the subject petition requests denies: of Resubdivision Nos. 767 and 768. Mr. Hesse discussed his concern that the bluff site is unstable and unsuitable for development. In addition, Mr. Hesse stated that the majority of the persons who signed the petition were of the opinion that the best land use for the parcels in question would be the extension of the existing park to Santa Ana Avenue. In response to Mr. Hesse's concerns relative to potential bluff slippage, Planning Director Hewicker advised that any development, prior to the issuance of any grading per- mits, must meet rigorous City standards in order to estab- lish that the site is capable of sustaining the proposed development. In addition, Mr. Hewicker explained that grading must be performed in compliance with the City's Grading Code. -26- EX r �m m � a7Cfla 0 • r� U April 19, 1984 MINUTES Mr. Hewicker also noted that there has been some previous testimony alleging the existence of subterranean water at the subject site. Mr. Hewicker stated that the City ha been unable to substantiate that such a situation actually exists. Mr. Hewicker then reviewed the feasibility of Mr. Hesse's suggestion that the existing park be extended to Santa Ana Avenue. During the course of his remarks, Mr. Hewicker noted the difficulty of utilizing the backs or the lower portions of the subject properties for a park unless Avon Street were extended. 'Mr. Hewicker then voiced doubt that the,City would be amenable to extending Avon Street if the subject properties were to be used solely for park purposes In answer to a question posed by Commissioner Goff as to whether the proposed Conditions of Approval are sufficient to relieve the City of liability in the event ground slip- page were to occur, Assistant City Attorney Gabriele re- sponded that the proposed requirements would minimize, if not eliminate, any potential City liability. Helen Kreutzkamp, Owner, 2961 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and spoke in support of the pro- ject. Ms. Kreutzkamp disputed previous testimony relative to the instability of the parcels and existence of sub- terranean water. Me. Kreutzkamp also indicated that com- ments alleging excessive density are unfounded and opined that the project would be an asset to the area. Steve Dobbie, 330 Santa Ana Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Heights Community Association. Mr. Dobbie discussed the Associa- tion's concerns relative to the Avon Street extension, commenting that the subject street extension would result in major adverse physical conflicts between commercial and residential elements, and would compound traffic problems in the area, especially at the intersection of Avon Street and Santa Ana Avenue and the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Santa Ana Avenue. With respect to the proposed project, Mr. Dobbie advised that the Applicant presented the proposed project to the Newport Heights Community Association approximately one year ago, at which time the project was unanimously approved by the Association's Board of Directors. Mr. -Y7- � x r fa• m vim' 6 x S m • • April 19, 1984 M NUTES Dobbie advised that the Board of Directors suggested four conditions relating to the project as follows. 1. That Avon Street be made a cul -de -sac and not be extended to Santa Ana Avenue. (Mr. Dobbie noted that the issue of the Avon Street extension is not within the purview of the Applicant.) 2. That the views of the existing properties be protected and that the Newport Heights Community Association be counseled regarding the density and projections within the.existing view corridor. 3. That pedestrian access be considered via pedestrian walkways from Santa Ana Avenue to Avon Street. 4. That the appropriate geological and civil engineering be performed to assure the stability of the building site. In closing, Mr. Dobbie stated that the Association is con- vinced that the Applicant will work with members of the Association and community with respect to the above - stated requests and will incorporate same into the project's final design. Mr. Dobbie then stated that the Association is therefore supportive of the proposed pro- ject. In response to Planning Commission inquiry, Traffic Engi- neer Edmonston stated that the Ad Hoc Mariners Mile Traf- fic Circulation Committee did address concerns relative to the intersection of Avon Street and Santa Ana Avenue, as well as the intersection of Santa Ana Avenue and Newpo Boulevard. Mr. Edmonston stated his belief that the..con- cerns of the Newport Heights Community Association can be accommodated with the extension of Avon Street. Barney Larks, 1901 Beryl Lane, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission and questioned the reference to low- and moderate- income housing in connection with Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 7. Staff pointed out that Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 7 is no longer needed in that only two additional residential units are proposed. Dr. Conover, 2949 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission and related his concerns relative to the possibility of the cliff being weakened by the proposed :9-M EX � r � W 3' y April 19, 1984 MINUTES development, as well as his concerns relating to the pro- posed density of the project and the resultant traffic increase. Rolly Pulaski, Applicant, reappeared before the Planning Commission and referred to his letter of April 4, 1984, which suggests possible Conditions of Approval regarding the residential /commercial proximity question, to wit: 1. That language be incorporated into the covenants and restrictions for the proposed lots which would essen- tially state that the buyer is purchasing the property with the full knowledge of the current and future com- mercial uses which are possible for the adjacent prop- erties. Further, that the language require that the buyer hold the City harmless from any future action it might take in approving projects which fall within the commercial standards. 2. That a block wall be constructed on the southerly side • of Avon Street as a noise buffer and safety measure. 3. That dense shrubbery be planted on the southerly side of Avon such as Acacia Latifolia or other planting materials known to assist in sound reduction. 4. That special sound insulating techniques be required and incorporated into the construction of the dwelling such as sound insulation, double glazing, etc. Mr. Pulaski then referred to Condition of Approval No. 25, which provides that all buildings on the project site shal . be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. Mr. Pulaski stated that he recommended this condition in connection with the prior project design as a mitigating factor for fire protection in view of Avon Street being made a cul-de -sac. Since Avon Street is now proposed for extension, Mr. Pulaski felt that the subject condition is unnecessary. Mr. Pulaski then brought notice to proposed Condition of Approval No. 26, which provides that all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shal be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. In answer to Mr. Pulaski's question relative to the need for the subject condition, Environmental Coordinator Temple commented that this condition is needed inasmuch as the • Fire Department will require that fire hydrants be pro- vided within the confines of the tentative parcel map, which includes the rededication. -29- e 7c � r e pv c 06 x W o • • April 19, 1984 MINUTES Mr. Pulaski referred to Condition of Approval No. 9, which provides that a 5- foot -wide concrete sidewalk be construc- ted along the Cliff Drive frontage and Santa Ana Avenue frontage. Although Mr. Pulaski concurred with the pro- vision of a sidewalk along Santa Ana Avenue, he questioned the need for a sidewalk along Cliff Drive inasmuch as the Cliff Drive frontage is an isolated section of property. Mr. Pulaski felt that it would be illogical to install a short section of sidewalk that starts and stops at each property line, and discussed the difficulty associated with installing a sidewalk at this location, in view of the severe grade conditions. Commissioner Person relayed his concern relative to resi- dential developments abutting commercial developments, and questioned whether the Applicant has instructed his attorney to prepare appropriate language concerning a restrictive covenant pertaining to the effects of the commercial zone abutting a residential zone which could be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Pulaski answered that he was assured by his attorney that such language could be created. He added that if this project is approved, he will engage his attorney to prepare such language that could subsequently be submitted to staff for approval. Commissioner Balalis brought notice to Mr. Pulaski's sug- gestions that a block wall be constructed on the southerly side of Avon Street as a noise buffer and that dense shrubbery be planted on the southerly side of Avon Street to assist sound reduction. Commissioner Balalis noted that the south side of Avon Street is opposite the Appli- cant's property and also noted that any commercial devel- opment would have access off of Avon Street. Therefore, Commissioner Balalis stated that a block wall or shrubbery on the south side of Avon Street would not be conducive to development of that property. Mr. Pulaski responded that based on his judgment relative to grade differentials, the wall and shrubbery would best serve noise abatement away from the housing area. With respect to property access, Mr. Pulaski stated that devel- opment of the commercial property would necessarily result in a revision of the wall and shrubbery arrangement. Traffic Engineer Edmonton voiced concern with the 4 -foot public right- of-way being utilized for a block wall and /or shrubbery. Mr. Edmonton felt that the public right -of- way on Avon Street would be best served as a public side- walk. -30- ra �x r f v � m � 06 Motion • Motion Ayes Nays Absent ix Ayes Absent r1 LA X April 19, 1984 MINUTES Planning Director Eewicker brought notice to Mr. Pulaski's suggestion that a Condition of Approval be added which would provide that special sound insulating techniques be required and incorporated into the construction of the. dwellings. Mr. Newicker stated that the Applicant can incorporate the subject sound insulating techniques into the dwellings, if desired; however, Mr. Rewicker questione< the propriety of making such special techniques mandatory. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to accept the Environmental Document and approve Resubdivision No. 767, subject to the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A ", with the following revisions: 1) That Condition No. 25 be deleted; 2) that a new condition be added which would require that a cove- nant and restrictions be recorded that would notify any potential buyer of such property of the fact that it is located immediately adjacent to commercial properties and specifying that those commercial properties may be devel- oped or redeveloped; 3) that Condition No. 9 be revised to eliminate reference to a sidewalk being constructed along the Cliff Drive frontage; and 4.) that Condition No.31 be expanded to reflect that the fair share contribution may be waived in lieu of the dedication that is required for the right - of-way of Avon Street. Commissioner Goff requested that the motion condition relating to the fair share contribution waiver be voted on separately, which request was accepted by the maker of the motion. Motion was made that Condition of Approval No. 31 be expanded to provide that the fair share contribution may be waived in lieu of the dedication that is required for the right- of-way of Avon Street, which MOTION CARRIED. The main motion was then voted on and CARRIED. Resubdi- vision No. 767 and the Environmental Document were thereby approved, subject to the following findings and conditions: A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Findings: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CBQA Guidelines and City Policy. -31- � x r o ■ O F g e 3 : C a • April 19, 1984 Me, 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this project. MINUFES 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the Environmental Document have been incorporated into the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval. 5. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have a sig- nificant adverse impact on the environment. The findings made in regard to the approval of the environ- mental document apply also to the approval of Resubdivision No. 767. B. RESUBDIVISION NO. 767 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 with the exception of the ±50 foot width for Avon Street, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems . from a planning standpoint. 3. That the.site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That an environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that its contents have been considered on the project. -32- • e 7c F i v � VI CC 7cp• April 19, 1984 MINUTES 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause public health S problems. $. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property.within the proposed subdivision. 9. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdi- vision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed by California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Capital Section 1300) of the Water Code. 10. That the area width and depth of the lots included in the subdivision are similar to existing lots in the area and are reasonable considering the location of the subject property. 11. That the Avon Street extension to Santa Ana Avenue is needed to provide adequate vehicular circulation and police and fire protection for the properties adjoining Avon Street. 12. That a street section of acceptable width will be required of the development. 13. That the proposed development will generate an increas in daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a fair share assessment to mitigate the increased traf- fic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the cumulative affect of additional traffic generated by residential development. Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. -33- e x f a m e °O V C6 U • April 19, 1984 MINUTES 3. That additional right- of-way be dedicated along Avon Street so as to allow the connection of Avon Street to Santa.Ana Avenue, and that a corner cutoff be pro- vided at the angle point on Avon Street right- of-way with radius as approved by the Public Works Depart- ment. 4. That sidewalk, curb, gutter, street lights and 32 -foot width of pavement be installed along the Avon Street .frontage. The slopes needed to accommodate standard street improvements shall be located on the building sites. Any drainage facilities and retaining walls needed to be the developer's responsibility. 5. That a minimum 24' width of pavement be installed on Avon Street from the easterly property line to connect to the existing pavement easterly of the site near Riverside Avenue. 6. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the.Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvement prior to recording of the final map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. That the research engineering and facilities needed to resolve the sewer, water supply, drainage, and street improve -, meat problems associated with this development shall I e the responsibility of and provided by the developer. As a part of the development, an 8" water main shall be constructed in Avon Street connecting the existing line in Riverside Drive and to the existing line in West Coast Highway at Newport Boulevard and that fire hydrants be constructed along Santa Ana Avenue and Avon Street as required by the Fire Department and the Public Works Department. A sanitary sewer main shall also be constructed to serve all parcels. 7. That 15- foot - radius corner cutoffs be dedicated to the public at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Cliff Drive and at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Avon Street. 8. That a new concrete curb be constructed along the Cliff Drive and Santa Ana Avenue frontages to replace the existing deteriorated curb. The curb face height shall be determined by the amount of water carried in Santa Ana Avenue and as approved by the Public -34- �x • n u April 19, 1984 MINUTES Works Department. The curb return at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Cliff Drive shall be constructed on a 25 -foot radius, and the existing street light relocated. An access ramp shall be included in the curb return. 9. That 5- foot -wide concrete sidewalk be constructed along the Santa Ana Avenue frontage. 110. That the street improvements and public water and sewer facilities be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. The street grade on Avon Street shall be designed and connected to Santa Ana Avenue in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Department. 11. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided if it is desired to record the map or obtain a building permit before the required public improvements are completed. 12. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. Surface and subsurface drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 13. That the applicant or subdivider shall design the pro- posed structures to preserve the pedestrian views of the bay and ocean from the proposed sidewalk on the easterly side of Santa Ana Avenue and shall submit plans to the Modifications Committee for approval of the design of the structures prior to permits being issued. Proper notice of this shall be given to the residents in this area. 14. That a condition survey of the existing retaining wall along the south side of Avon Street be made by a civil or structural engineer, and that the retaining wall be reinforced in conformance with the recommenda- tions of the condition survey and to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 15. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise ap- proved by the Public Works Department. -35- • i U n 7c ¢ e or C � S 6 o S O 'J � O O a April 19, 1984 M M 16. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. MINUTES 17. The grading permit shall include, if required, a des- cription of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 18. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 19. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the pro- ject shall be evaluated and erosive velocities con led as part of the project design. 20. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recom- mendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a compre- hensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 21. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 22. That prior to the occupancy of any unit, a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense, shall demonstrate to the satis- faction of the Planning Director that the noise impact from West Coast Highway, Avon Street or Santa Ana Avenue on any dwelling unit does not exceed 65 dB CNEL for outside living areas and the requirements of law for interior spaces. 23. That any building address and street name shall comply with City Standards and shall be approved by the Fire Department. -36- A C AOL gsy � t T j • • April 19, 1984 ,�: \.tip /�.�, i_ ".•, � 24. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 25. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. MINUTES 26. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of construc- tion activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies & -5 and R -6. 27. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 28. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the Building Department and the Public Works Department with a letter from the Sanitation District stating that sewer facilities will be available at the time of occupancy. 29. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 30. That garage access to Parcel No. 3 shall be taken from Avon Street. 31. That the project shall contribute to fair -share for circulation system and noise wall improvements, prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits for the project. The fair share contribution may be waived in lieu of the dedication that is required for the right- of-way of Avon Street. 32. That a covenant and restrictions be recorded that would notify any potential buyer of such property of the fact that it is located immediately adjacent to commercial properties and specifying that those com- mercial properties may be developed or redeveloped. -37- . . CIMP401Y551( 1 April 19, 1984 MINUTES � x 4� c n U Motion Ayes Absent Resubdivision No. 768 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into three parcels of land for single - family residential purposes. The pro- posal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow a 40- foot -wide right- of-way on Avon Street where a minimum 60 -foot width is required. LOCATION: Lot 2, Block B, First Addition to Newport Heights Tract, located at 2953 Cliff Drive on the southerly side of Cliff Drive, easterly of Santa Ana Avenue, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita, Newport Beach OWNERS: Rolly Pulaski and Rob Ingold, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers and Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Rolly Pulaski, Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and concurred with the Findings and Conditions of Approval recommended in the staff report. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to accept the Environmental Document and approve Resubdivision No. 768, subject to the Findings and Conditions as contained in Exhibit "A ", with the fol- lowing revisions: 1) That Condition No. 21 be deleted; 2) That Condition No. 6 be deleted; 3) That the second sentence of new Condition No. 6 be amended to read; "The street grade on Avon Street shall be designed and improved and connected to Santa Ana Avenue in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Department;" and 4) That an additional condition be added to require that a covenant and restric- tions be recorded that would notify any potential buyer of such property of the fact that it is located immediately adjacent to commercial properties and specifying that those commercial properties may be developed or redevel- oped, which NOTION CARRIED. -38- Item Y4 Resub. No. 768 Approved Condi- tionally 0 • e g o April 19, 1984 MW A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Findings: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this project. MINUTES 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the Environmental Document have been incorporated into the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval. 5. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The findings made in regard to the approval of the mental document apply also to the approval of Resu No. 768. B. RESUBDIVISION NO. 768 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, with the exception of the street width of less than 60 feet and the Planning Commission is satisifed with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. -39- INDEX e;, n m � + �nxJT • • April 19, 1984 77A MNNUfES 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That an environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that its contents have been considered on the project. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause public health problems. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed Improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired .by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 9. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdi- vision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed by California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Capital Section 1300) of the Water Code. 10. That the area width and depth of the lots included in the subdivision are similar to existing lots in the area and are reasonable considering the location of the subject property. 11. That the Avon Street extension to Santa Ana Avenue is needed to provide adequate vehicular circulation and police and fire protection for the properties adjoining Avon Street. 12. That a street section of acceptable width will be required of the development. 13. That the proposed development will generate an increa in daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a fair share assessment to mitigate the increased traf- fic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the cumulative affect of additional traffic generated by residential development. -40- n x z 6 x p 0 • • April 19, 1984 M 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. MINUTES 3. That sidewalk, curb, gutter, street lights and 32 -foot width of pavement be installed along the Avon Street frontage. The slopes needed to accommodate standard street improvements shall be located on the building sites. Any drainage facilities and retaining walls needed to be the developer's responsibility. 4. That a minimum 24' width of pavement be installed on Avon Street from the easterly property line of Resub- division No. 768 to connect to the existing pavement easterly of the site near Riverside Avenue. 5. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvement prior to recording of the final map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsi- bility of the developer. That.the research engineerinE and facilities needed to resolve the sewer, water supply, drainage, and street improvement problems associated with this development shall be the responsi- bility of and provided by the developer. As a part of the development, an 8" water main shall be con- structed in Avon Street connecting the existing line in Riverside Drive and to the existing line in West Coast Highway at Newport Boulevard and that fire hydrants be constructed along Santa Ana Avenue and Avon Street as required by the Fire Department and the Public Works Department. A sanitary sewer main shall also be.constructed to serve all parcels. 6. That the street improvements and public water and sewer facilities be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. The street grade on Avon Street shall be designed and improved and connected to Santa Ana Avenue in a manner accepta- ble to the Public Works Department. -41- ' CQM% April 19, 1984 MSS e R � r a � e SRI; iz, E ��. \.ti ► / ���. sue! • . � 7. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided if it is desired to record the map or obtain a building permit before the required public improvements are completed. 8. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. Surface and subsurface drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Building Depart- ment and the Public Works Department. 9. That a condition survey of the existing retaining wall along the south side of Avon Street be made by a civil or structural engineer, and that the retaining wall be reinforced in conformance with the recommendations of the condition survey and to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 10. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual I water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 11. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a com- plate plan for temporary and permanent drainage facili- ties, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 12. The grading permit shall include, if required. a des- cription of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 13. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if re- quired, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 14. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 15. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recom- mendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a compre- hensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as -42- U • n U April 19, 1984 Me Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. MIPUTES 16. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 17. That prior to the occupancy of any unit, a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the appli- cant's expense, shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the noise impact from West Coast Highway, Avon Street or Santa Ana Avenue on any dwelling unit does not exceed 65 dB CNEL for outside living areas and the requirements of law for interior spaces. 18. That any building address and street name shall comply with City Standards and shall be approved by the Fire Department. 19. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 20. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 21. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies & -5 and & -6. 22. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 23. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the Building Department and the Public Works Department with a letter from the Sanitation District stating that sewer facilities will be available at the time of occupancy. 24. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. -43- a x � o April 19, 1984 Me Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. MIPUTES 16. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 17. That prior to the occupancy of any unit, a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the appli- cant's expense, shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the noise impact from West Coast Highway, Avon Street or Santa Ana Avenue on any dwelling unit does not exceed 65 dB CNEL for outside living areas and the requirements of law for interior spaces. 18. That any building address and street name shall comply with City Standards and shall be approved by the Fire Department. 19. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 20. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 21. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies & -5 and & -6. 22. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 23. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the Building Department and the Public Works Department with a letter from the Sanitation District stating that sewer facilities will be available at the time of occupancy. 24. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. -43- • i n 7c • CL 0 I April 19, 1984 5n 6 _ •� 1 MKffES 25. Prior to the issuance of Building and Grading Per- mits, the applicant shall pay Fair -Share for circu- lation system improvements and noise walls as estab- lished by Ordinance to be adopted by the City. 26. That =s covenant and restrictions be recorded that would notify any potential buyer of such property of the fact that it 1s located immediately adjacent to commercial properties and specifying that those commercial properties may be developed or redeveloped. Planning Commission recessed at at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. • a Use Permit No. 1778 (Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Public hearing and 6 -month Planning Commission review of the issues permitting a lunch -time operation in Hemingway's Restaurant during the week, and the acceptance of an off - site parking agreement for the additional required daytime restaurant parking. LOCATION: Lots Nos. 5 and 6, Block B, Tract No. 470; Lots Nos. 7 and 9, Block 730, Corona del Mar located at 2441 East Coast Highway, on the southwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Carnation Avenue (i.e., res- taurant site); and the northerly side of . East Coast Highway, between MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Center Drive.(i.e., off -site parking site), in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Randall H. Johnson, dba Hemingway's Corona del Mar OWNER: James B. Wood, Corona del Mar -44- item 95 U.P. 91778 Denied • • April 19, 1984 Mme« The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Randall Johnson, Applicant, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission. Mr. Johnson stated his objection to some of the context of the staff report. Mr. Johnson stated his concurrence with the Findings and Conditions of Approv- al contained in Exhibit "B ". Mr. Johnson indicated that he is making a concerted effort to rectify the problems surrounding his parking operation and referred to his let- ter to the Traffic Engineer, dated April 1, 1984, which sets forth his most- recent efforts to correct said prob- lems. Mr. Johnson relayed that the Traffic Engineer has no objections with the new proposed valet route and further related that the Traffic Engineer is of the opinion that the current valet system is workable. Mr. Johnson request- ed the Commission's continued support and voiced his hope that Hemingway's Restaurant will be permitted to continue its lunch -time operation. In answer to a Planning Commission inquiry, Mr. Johnson stated that the first valet commences duty at 9:00 a.m., the second valet commences duty at 10:00 a.m., and the third valet commences duty at 11:30 a.m. Mr. Johnson noted, however, that sometimes one valet is removed from duty when business does not meet their expectations. Mr. Johnson stated, however, that if the Restaurant's lunch- time operation is allowed to continue, they will keep three valets on the lot at all times during their prime business hours, i.e., from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. With respect to the observation that patrons' cars have been parked in unauthorized areas, Mr. Johnson stated that the subject cars did not necessarily belong to his patrons. Mr. Johnson then reviewed their authorized parking arrange- ments, and indicated unwillingness to be responsible for patrons who park in unauthorized areas. Mr. Johnson stated that Hemingway's has a night -time agree - ment to utilize the Orient Handel parking lot. He added that Mr. Shokrian, owner of the Orient Handel property, approached him relative to the possibility of Hemingway's utilizing the Orient Handel parking lot in connection with its lunch -time operation.. Mr. Johnson conceded that he agreed to use the lot; however, he added that he dis- continued use of the lot upon learning that such a situa- tion is illegal without City approval. -45- E � � m • • April 19, 1984 Mme« The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Randall Johnson, Applicant, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission. Mr. Johnson stated his objection to some of the context of the staff report. Mr. Johnson stated his concurrence with the Findings and Conditions of Approv- al contained in Exhibit "B ". Mr. Johnson indicated that he is making a concerted effort to rectify the problems surrounding his parking operation and referred to his let- ter to the Traffic Engineer, dated April 1, 1984, which sets forth his most- recent efforts to correct said prob- lems. Mr. Johnson relayed that the Traffic Engineer has no objections with the new proposed valet route and further related that the Traffic Engineer is of the opinion that the current valet system is workable. Mr. Johnson request- ed the Commission's continued support and voiced his hope that Hemingway's Restaurant will be permitted to continue its lunch -time operation. In answer to a Planning Commission inquiry, Mr. Johnson stated that the first valet commences duty at 9:00 a.m., the second valet commences duty at 10:00 a.m., and the third valet commences duty at 11:30 a.m. Mr. Johnson noted, however, that sometimes one valet is removed from duty when business does not meet their expectations. Mr. Johnson stated, however, that if the Restaurant's lunch- time operation is allowed to continue, they will keep three valets on the lot at all times during their prime business hours, i.e., from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. With respect to the observation that patrons' cars have been parked in unauthorized areas, Mr. Johnson stated that the subject cars did not necessarily belong to his patrons. Mr. Johnson then reviewed their authorized parking arrange- ments, and indicated unwillingness to be responsible for patrons who park in unauthorized areas. Mr. Johnson stated that Hemingway's has a night -time agree - ment to utilize the Orient Handel parking lot. He added that Mr. Shokrian, owner of the Orient Handel property, approached him relative to the possibility of Hemingway's utilizing the Orient Handel parking lot in connection with its lunch -time operation.. Mr. Johnson conceded that he agreed to use the lot; however, he added that he dis- continued use of the lot upon learning that such a situa- tion is illegal without City approval. -45- Z R April 19, 1984 I�.�'11� L1J • MIMMS -46- Commissioner &urlander voiced concern that the sign that announces the valet parking was located in the middle of the sidewalk. Mr. Johnson responded that the sign was placed there to be readily visible so as to avoid confu- sion; However, Mr. Johnson noted that the sign can be relocated. Commissioner Rurlander commented that several weeks ago, he personally observed a backup of four or five vehicles in the driveway which extended onto Carnation Avenue waiting to gain access. Mr. Johnson replied that this could have been a "situation circumstance" and suggested that the cars could have arrived at one particular time. Mr. Johnson added that they have sufficient space to allow six cars to pull in simultaneously without encroaching on the sidewalk or public street. In answer to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Johnson stated for the record that he has read the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit "B" of the . staff report and intends to abide by all Conditions. Commissioner Person noted that there was previously some discussion concerning the possibility of the Applicant obtaining additional off - street parking and questioned the status thereof. Mr. Johnson responded that although no commitment has been made, he is interested in purchas- ing the two duplexes located directly below the Restaurant. In addition, Mr. Johnson stated that he called The Irvine Company relative to acquiring the Newport Harbour National Bank property for parking purposes; however, due to present legal problems associated with the Bank, the property is. not available at this point in time. Traffic Engineer Edmonston advised that he reviewed the Hemingway's operation and has determined that 1) there is sufficient room for receiving cars on -site, 2) a sufficient system exists for transporting vehicles via public streets to the off -site lot, and 3) the return route is acceptable from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Edmonston stressed, however that the number of valets required to make the operation work is not an issue he can analyze and address. Mr. Johnson brought notice to Condition of Approval No. 7, which states that the day -time hours of the Restaurant facility shall be from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. daily. Mr. Johnson discussed the hardship the 3:00 p.m, cut -off • time would create in the event a function lasts longer -46- iC X . � r ■ m s o 7t • Motion Ayes Nays Absent r\ U April 19, 1984 W MM"", MINUTES than anticipated. Consequently, Mr. Johnson requested that the Restaurant's hours of day -time operation be extended to 5:00 p.m., at which time the Restaurant would commence its hours of night -time operation. Planning Director Hewicker noted that Hemingway's has advertised that they have, or are contemplating, the possibility of providing patio dining. Mr. Johnson responded that these advertisements have been discontinued and stated that if the Restaurant proceeds with the provision of incidental outdoor dining, the outdoor dining area and indoor dining area will not exceed the net square footage that was previously authorized by the City. Planning Director Hewicker questioned the Assistant City Attorney as to whether the City, by virtue of its approval of a valet arrangement which involves the crossing of an arterial highway, could be held liable in the event a valet attendant crossed the highway against the light and was consequently involved in an accident. Assistant City Attorney Gabriele responded that by grant- ing approval, the City is approving the valet arrangement on the basis that the employees would abide by all laws. If, however, the parking attendants violate the laws, Mr. Gabriele advised that any consequences would be the respon- sibility of the employer. Commissioner Person questioned the propriety of the Appli- cant executing a hold harmless agreement concerning third - party liability in the use of the off - street parking. Assistant City Attorney Gabriele responded that such action would be a good protective measure, even though the like- lihood of City liability would be remote. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 1778, with the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit "B ", with the following revisions: 1) That an additional condition be added requiring the Applicant to execute a hold harmless indemnification agreement to protect the City in the event a valet attendant is involved in an accident. Further that the City Attorney's Office -47- e 7C ■ tv Qxp; a 3:I=R April 19, 1984 M e MMMS be in receipt of said hold harmless agreement within 30 days; and 2) That the hours of the day -time operation be extended to take place between the hours of 11:00 a.m, and 5:00 p.m. daily, which MOTION FAILED. Motion x Motion was made for denial of Use Permit No. 1778, sub - Ayes x x x x ject to the Findings of Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED. Nays x Abstain x Absent x Findings: 1. That inadequate parking facilities currently exist on the subject property for a lunch -time operation in Hemingway's Restaurant during the week. 2. The off -site parking area is not located so as to be useful to the proposed restaurant use inasmuch as it • is 1100 * - ft. from the restaurant, and further, based upon the fact that said off -site parking area has not been regularly utilized by employees and patrons' automobiles as previously required. is 3. That the applicant has shown.a disregard for previously imposed conditions of approval. I ( I I I I I 4. That the proposal submitted in conjunction with the six -month review will not resolve the parking problems associated with the daytime use of the subject res- taurant. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1778 (Amended) will, 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 and the general welfare of the City. -48- MMI5S10�M April 19, 1984 MINUTES E c� • " S s City of NeAport Beach Use Permit No. 3093 (Continued Public Nearing)' Item 86 Request to permit the construction of a retail commercial U.P. 83093 building containing a 7- Eleven convenience store and small space for a retail shop and related offstreet parking Approved spaces on property located in the Unclassified District, Condi- and the acceptance of an environmental document. tionally LOCATION: Lot 717 of the First Addition of the Newport Mesa Tract, located at 1495 Super- ior Avenue, being the triangular island bounded by Superior Avenue, Placentia Avenues and 15th Street, within the West Newport Triangle. ZONE: Unclassified I I I I I I APPLICANT. The Southland Corporation dba 7- Eleven, Garden Grove I j I I I I OWNER: Shell Oil Company, Anaheim The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Lou Corbo appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Corbo stated his basic con - currence with all Findings and Conditions of Approval recommended by staff, but requested clarification of Condi- tion No. 28, which provides that a raised median shall be constructed in Superior Avenue between Placentia Avenue and 15th Street. Mr. Corbo subsequently requested that a maximum cost requirement be applied to the subject condi- tion. Mr. Corbo advised that in an attempt to alleviate or rectify concerns by affected residents, the Applicant has agreed to the following concessions: 1) The proposed_ site plan has been revised to include additional landscaping; 2) The signage originally planned for the back of the building will now be placed on the side of the structure; 3) A proposed monument sign has been removed to reflect only one sign on the site plan; 4) The building will be relocated as per the site plan displayed this evening; 5) A maintenance care agreement will be entered into with the City; 6) Deliveries and trash pick -up shall not occur before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m.; 7) A berm will be installed, and intensified landscaping provided, along the Placentia Avenue frontage. -49- e x $ r m g s April 19, 1984 MINUTES In response to a question by the Planning Commission, Traffic Engineer Edmonston estimated that the cost of the proposed Superior Avenue median would be approximately $6,000 to $7,000. Mr. Edmonston explained that the need for the median is created by the proposed Superior Avenue driveway; however, in light of other projects along Super- ior, the Public Works Department feels it would be approp- riate for the City to contribute up to 50% of the cost of the median work. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff rela- tive to screening the rooftop mechanical equipment from the Brookview Condominiums, Mr. Corbo responded that their architect could work with the City in an attempt to arrange an adequate screening arrangement. Ray Weaver, 813 West 15th Street, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission on behalf of the Brookview Condominium homeowners. Mr. Weaver reiterated the homeowners' concerns with the project as contained in their letter of March 23, 1984. Specifically, the homeowners were concerned with the possibility of increased traffic congestion, as well as ramifications associated with the store's proposed 24- hour operation and the provision of video games. Mr. Weaver further indicated that the Southland Corporation has resolved the homeowners' concerns with respect to building design. In response to Mr. Weaver's concern that the proposed 24- hour operation may pose a threat to area'safety, Commis- sioner King pointed out that the project would be lightdd and hence could serve as a deterrent to crime. Commissioner Person questioned whether it would be within the purview of the Commission to require the Applicant to delete video games from his plans. Assistant City Attorney Gabriele responded that the ulti- mate decision re video games reposes in the Office of the City Manager. However, he added that the Planning Commission may submit input to the City Manager's Office relative to the advisability of permitting video games. Planning Director Hewicker explained that the City has a Video Game Ordinance and pointed out that if a City permit for video games were issued and the games subsequently became a problem, revocation proceedings for said permit could be initiated. -50- s April 19, 1984 71 HNUTES Commissioner Balalis pointed out that a 7- Eleven is a convenience store, rather than a destination point, and voiced his doubt that people would specifically go to the store to.play video games. Bon Dick, 843 West 15th Street, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission. Mr. Dick expressed his concern with the degree of traffic in the area and suggested the installa- tion of a traffic signal at the intersection of 15th and Placentia. Traffic Engineer Edmonston replied that this intersection does not meet the City's standard criteria for warranting the installation of a traffic signal, i.e., volume of traffic and pedestrians, as well as the intersection's accident history. Mr. Edmonston added that the proposed westerly extension of 15th Street may necessitate a traffic signal at this location at some point in the future. In answer to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Traffic • Engineer Edmonston stated his belief that the Superior Avenue median can be installed prior to the opening of the 7- Eleven 'establishment. In addition, Mr. Edmonston sug- gested that the Planning Commission require the Applicant to deposit his share of the median funds prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Mr. Edmonton explained that this proviso would enable the Public Works Depart- ment to proceed with the median construction concurrent with the building of the 7- Eleven store. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3093, sub - ject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit "A" of the staff report with the following changes and additions: 1) That an additional sentence be added to Condition Mo. 3 to read: "The rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from the top to the extent permitted by the Building Code;" 2) The last sentence of Condition No. 18 shall be revised to provide that sweeping shall not occur before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m.; 3) That an additional sentence be added to Condition No. 19 to read: "The landscape plan shall reflect attention to berming and a mix of shrubs and trees along the Placentia Avenue frontage;" 4) That an additional sentence be added • to Condition No. 28 to read: "Applicant shall deposit 50% -51- e � Cap �am s °gig: • April 19, 1984 MBA MS of the cost of construction of the median, up to a maximum of $3500, with the City prior to.the issuance of a buildings permit;" 5) That Condition No. 29 be revised to read: "That the number, size and location of all signs shall be as shown on the approved plans. provided however,.that the second ground sign may only be permitted if approved by the Modifications.Committee and the.wall sign on the Pla- centia Avenue elevation shall be moved to the 15th Street elevation. In addition, all signs.shall be limited to external illumination and all temporary signs, including window signs, shall be prohibited;" 6) That an additional condition be added to read: "The hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m, and 11:00 p.m.;" 7) That an additional condition be added to read "Deliver- ies and trash pick -up shall not occur before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m.;" 8) That an additional condition be added to read: "That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury or is detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of.the community." Lou Corbo reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that a limitation on business hours is not accepta- ble to the Applicant and stated that their business depends on a 24 -hour operation because of the convenience aspect related thereto. Mr. Corbo added that one of the reasons the Southland Corporation selected this location for a 7- Eleven store was because of the activity in and around the location -- particularly in light of the area hospital that are open on a 24 -hour basis. Commissioner Goff expressed his.reasoning for suggesting that the hours of operation be limited, commenting that the store would be located in close proximity to residen- tial areas and commented that a 24 -hour operation would be an impingement on area residents. Commissioner Person voiced his doubt that the proposed 7- Eleven store would cause an increase in area noise and opined that the hospital visitors would be benefitted by the establishment. -52- e x � � m o dr> 0; x0 3 0 Notion Ayes Nays Absent x Ay Absent x r1 U April 19, 1984 rK Chairman King stated that he would not support a limi- tation on the hours of operation, citing the benefits which would be derived from the establishment and the mitigation measures undertaken by the Applicant so as to relieve concerns of affected residents. MINUTES Commissioner Person brought notice to the final Condition of Approval which provides that the Conditions of Approval may be modified if problems arise with respect to the operation of the establishment. He noted that the hours of operation can hence.be revised if those business hours prove to be a detriment to the community. The Planning Commission agreed to vote separately on the proviso relative to the hours of operation of the business. Motion was therefore made to limit the hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., which MOTION FAILED. The original motion was then voted on, with the deletion of the proviso relative to limiting the hours of operation, which MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3093 was thereby approved, subject to the following Findings and Conditions: 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. Adequate off - street parking spaces will be provided for the proposed office building. 3. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 4. That the Police Department does not anticipate any problems from the proposed use on the property. 5. That the design of the development or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed development. -53- A � S o all April 19, 1984 MMMS 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3093 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 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 plan, and eleva- tions, except as may be noted below. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjacent properties and public stre, The rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from the top to the extent permitted by the Building Code. 4. That the on -site parking area shall be fully illumi- nated. Said lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjoining streets and nearby residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer; with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. Prior to the issuance of any Building Permits author- ized by the approval of this use permit, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for circulation system improvements and noise walls. 6. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to.guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. . -54- C x r n U April 19, 1984 Me1 MINUTES 7. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 8. That the intersection of the drives with the public streets be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the site distance requirement may be approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 9. The existing tree wells on Superior Avenue shall be planted or filled in with concrete as approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 10. That the existing unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalk; that any deteriorated curb, gutter, or sidewalk be replaced; and that the new drive aprons be constructed per City Std. 166-L along the Superior Avenue and the 15th Street frontages, with all work to be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 11. That access ramps be constructed per City Std. 181 -L at the intersections of 15th Street and Superior Avenu 15th Street at.Placentia Avenue, and Superior Avenue at Placentia Avenue along with an access ramp through the median island. This work is to be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 12. That prior to issuance of any grading or building per- mits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available.for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 13. That the sewer system be installed as required by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 14. The project shall be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph G, Division T -20, Chapter 2, Subchapter 4. -55- 1 U lb • • i April 19, 1984 MMMS 15. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies K -6 and K -7. 16. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 17. The final design of the project shall provide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. 18. The applicants shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. Sweeping shall not occur before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. 19. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall reflect attention to berming and a mix of shrubs and trees along the Placentia Avenue frontage. 20. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 21. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 22. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought - resistant native vegetation and be irri- gated via a system designed to avoid surface run-off and overwatering. 23. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a com- plete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facili- ties, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 24. That grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize Impacts of haul operations. 25. An erosion and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. -56- • April 19, 1984 26. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be reviewed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region; and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. 27. Vehicular access to the subject property shall be restricted to right- turn -only from Superior Avenue and full access from 15th Street. 28. A raised median shall be constructed in Superior Avenue between Placentia Avenue and 15th Street so as to prevent left - hand -turns into and out of the subject property. Applicant shall deposit 50% of the cost of construction of the median, up to a maximum of $3500, with the City prior to the issu- ance of a building permit. IWNUTES 29. That the number, size and location of all signs shall be as shown on the approved plans, provided however, that the second ground sign may only be permitted if approved by the Modifications Committee and the wall sign on the Placentia Avenue elevation shall be moved to the 15th Street elevation. In addition, all signs shall be limited to external illumination and all temporary signs, including window signs, shall be prohibited. 30. Deliveries and trash pick -up shall not occur before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. 31. That the Planning Commission may add or modify Condi- tions of Approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Per- mit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. Planning Commission recessed at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 p.m. -57- Ic e 'v $ � X O N 11 • April 19, 1984 M General Plan Amendment No. 83 -2(b) (Continued Public Hearing MINUTES Request to amend the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan so to update the Community Housing Market Analysis and Housing Needs Assessment Sections on the basis of more recent data and revise the constraints to Housing Delivery and Housing Program Sections in response to implementation progress made since November of 1982. This amendment is being made pursuant to Government Code 65580 at spec . INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Advance Planning Administrator Lenard reviewed the supple- mental reports that were previously distributed to the Planning Commission concerning proposed modifications to the Housing Element. Mr. Lenard stated that minor changes were made to the document in three areas, i.e., 1) Addi- tional discussion was added relating to the SCAG Regional Housing Allocation Model; 2) Affordability standards were expanded to clarify rental rates and sale prices as they relate to the number of bedrooms; and 3) Additional lang- uage was incorporated which evaluates the Housing Element' progress since its original adoption. Staff reviewed that State Law requires that all jurisdic- tions process major revisions to their Housing Elements by July 1, 1984. Staff explained that following Planning Commission action this evening, the draft Housing Element will be referred to the City Council for consideration during its April 23, 1984 meeting. Following City Council action thereon, the document will be forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for its 45 -day review. Staff further advised that BCD's com- ments on the Draft Element will be submitted to the Plan- ning Commission and City Council for consideration. Staff noted that while the document is being reviewed by the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Com- mission may, if desired, schedule additional Study Session or Public Hearings to further review the document, provide any major changes are submitted to HCD. -58- • • Motion Ayes Absent 0. e n � e � m s �n7cg= rill S i April 19, 1984 M NUMS The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Dave Dmohowski appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company. Mr. Dmohowski distributed copies of a letter from Dick Simm, of the Company's Com- munity Development Division, which relays general comments concerning the Draft Element. Mr. Dmohowski explained that The Irvine Company.bas not had sufficient time to thoroughly review the document, but expressed hope that they will be able to submit detailed comments prior to final adoption of the Element. Mr. Dmohowski relayed that The Irvine Company is generally supportive of many of the policy directions contained in the Element, and stated that the Company is currently in the process of reviewing the City's latest criteria respecting affordability. Mr. Dmohowski indicated that The Irvine Company hopes to pro- vide additional comments at the April 23, 1984 City Council meeting. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she was unable to attend the Adjourned Planning Commission meeting of April 16, 1984, at which time the Draft Housing Element was discussed. Commissioner McLaughlin added, however, that she has reviewed all materials applicable to this issue and questioned whether she can vote thereon. Assis- tant City Attorney Gabriele answered that it would be appropriate for Commissioner McLaughlin to vote on this issue. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ring brought notice to the portion of the Element which discusses the replacement of low- and moderate- income housing demolished in the Coastal Zone, and questioned the propriety of referencing the Mello Bill in the document to clarify the reason that issue is being addressed. Staff agreed to incorporate the subject reference in the document. Commissioner Goff stated that he has made numerous notes on his copy of the.Draft Element and advised that he will refer same to staff. Motion was made to accept the Draft Housing_ Element revi- sions discussed at the April 16, 1984 Adjourned Planning Commission meeting and this evening's meeting, including those changes supplied by staff, and refer the amended document to the City Council for action, which MDTIOH CARRIED. • r -59- Motion Ayes Absent 0 x e at IT IT April 19, 1984 71 �_ _• 1 Resubdivision No. 775 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing single parcel of land into two parcels for multiple - family residential purposes. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 79 -725 ( Resubdivision No. 637) located at 1600 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, in Area 8 of the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Bruce Martin appeared before the Planning Comission on behalf of the Irvine Pacific Development Company. Mr. Martin stated that he has read the Findings and Condi- tions of Approval recommended in the staff report and is in concurrence therewith. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 775, subject to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhibit "A" of the staff report, 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. -60- A � r• C � O F Minor April 19, 1984 loll Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded. 2. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 637 be fulfilled as approved by the Planning Commis- sion on January 10, 1983. • * e Use Permit No. 1053 (Amended) (Public Hearing) NNUTES Request to amend a previously. approved use permit which allowed live entertainment involving a piano only and the expansion of dining areas within the existing Le Biarritz restaurant. The proposed amendment involves a request to install a removable dance floor within a por- tion of the existing "net public area" on the second floor of .the restaurant and to allow dancing with a four - piece band in conjunction with the restaurant use. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 149 -23 (Resubdivision No. 623) located at 414 North Newport Boulevard, on the north- easterly corner of North Newport Boulevard and Westminster Avenue, adjacent to Newport Heights. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANTS: Yves Briee and Yvan Humbert, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicants -61- Item U.P. s It i=9 0 0 April 19, 1984 n MMJTES Commissioner Person stepped down from the dais and refrained from deliberation on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Anthony Russell, Attorney, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Russell relayed that the Applicant concurs with the Condi- tions of Approval recommended in the staff report, with the exception of Condition No. 2, which provides that the pick -up and delivery of automobiles in conjunction with the restaurant valet service shall be conducted on site and not within the public right -of -way. Mr. Russell stated that Mrs. Briee's letter to the Traffic Engineer, dated April 12, 1984, specifically sets forth the Appli- cant's concern with the aforementioned condition. Mr. Russell explained that the restaurant's valet service is presently located in front of the main entrance of the restaurant on Newport Boulevard, which Mr. Russell conceded to be in violation of the restaurant's use permit. Mr. Russell explained that the Applicant origi- nally provided the valet station on the second level of thi parking structure; however, public demand necessitated a change in the valet station to the location presently utilized. Mr. Russell went on to state that there are presently three parking spaces located directly in front of the restaurant's main entrance and requested that same be designated as a loading /unloading zone to enable the valet station to continue to exist at this location. Chairman King stated that the subject parking spaces are situated in the public right- of-way and commented that in the past when he has tried to park in these spaces, he has been met with resistance from the valet attendants. Chairman King added that the attendants have been known to call the Police Department in an attempt to have cars towed when they were legally parked in those public parkin] spaces. Chairman King questioned whether the restaurant's patrons would have become accustomed to this valet station if people had been allowed to park in the three public parking spaces and if the valets had not established the area as a.valet stop. Chairman King then suggested the possibility of one parking space being designated as a loading /unloading zone so as to enable a driver to unload his passengers near the main entrance of the restaurant, and then drive to the appropriate valet station. -62- F X � 1 � m C Q • • April 19, 1984 MNMS In answer to a question posed by the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Gabriele explained that the Plan- ning Commission does not have the legal authority to make a determination relative to roadway designations and explained that this authority is within the purview of the Traffic Engineer in conjunction with State traffic provi- sions. Mr. Gabriele then advised that since the Planning Commission approved a specific valet drop -off point as part of its approval of the restaurant's use permit, the Applicant would be required to obtain approval from the Planning Commission if any deviation from the original plan is proposed. It was therefore noted that if the Traffic Engineer designates the subject area as a loading zone, it would not mean that the valet pick -up can occur at that location, inasmuch as such a revision would be in violation of the restaurant's use permit. In answer to a question posed by Commissioner Goff as to the legality of the City designating a public parking space for private use, Assistant City Attorney Gabriele relayed his position that it would not be appropriate for the Commission to take a position in support of the res- taurant's.request to be designated a portion of the public street for its private use. City Engineer Edmonton added that there are two locations in the City where valet operations on a public street have been approved, i.e., the Fun Zone and the Rex Res- taurant. Mr. Edmonston then reviewed that the Fun Zone project was designated a number of spaces along the street for valet service, for which the City received compensa- tion. Mr. Edmonton explained that this situation no longer exists. With respect to the Rex Restaurant, Mr. Edmonton pointed out that there was a passenger loading zone near the door of the restaurant to facilitate the various businesses in the area and added that the owner of the Rex Restaurant had secured off -site parking even though he was not required to do so. In view of the fore- going, Mr. Edmonston advised that the City Manager and he deemed it to be.appropriate that the loading /unloading zone be utilized by the restaurant valets, with the implicit understanding that the space would not be their exclusive domain. City Engineer Edmonston voiced concern that the number of valets utilized at Le Biarritz has been insufficient and stated that he has seen cars double parked and parked on the sidewalk. -63- April 19, 1984 r QtY of Newwt Beach During the course of discussion, it was noted that _ although the Traffic Engineer has the prerogative to es- tablish a loading zone, the Traffic Engineer does not have the authority to overrule the Planning Commission or City Council so as to alter a valet station decision which has been conditioned in a use permit. In response to the Applicant's comments that there is inadequate space to stack cars for valet parking, Chair- man Ring suggested that the Applicant clearly mark the ramp to the garage as-an entrance so as to essentially provide two drives in which cars can be stacked. Chair- man Ring also suggested that the Westminster Avenue exit be left unchained to allow egress. Yves Briee, owner of Le Biarritz, appeared before the Pla ning Commission and apologized for the behavior of his valets, explaining that they are retained through a valet company. Mr. Briee explained that his patrons have seemed to demand that the valet drop -off be situated directly in front of the Restaurant. He pointed out that the-Restaurant is surrounded by hospitals and con- valescent homes and noted that many patrons have walking difficulties and hence would be benefitted by a valet station located in close proximity to the Restaurant. Commissioner Balalis suggested that perhaps the parking spaces should be striped so as to make it clear that the spaces are for public parking. George Baker, 434 North Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced his concern that a "dance hall" is planned and discussed concerns relating to the resultant noise pollution, traffic on Westminster Avenue, and the restaurant patrons who block the adjacent driveways. Planning Director Hewicker pointed out that the Applicant is proposing a removable, 9' by 12' dance floor. Commissioner Goff stated that although Mr. Baker's con- cerns are valid, he believes that they can be addressed by the proposed Conditions of the Use Permit. Specifi- cally, Commissioner Goff noted that a portion of the wording of Condition No. 4 provides that the music shall be confined to the interior of the Restaurant and all doors and windows shall be closed while such activity is -64- • Motion Ayes Abstain Abut e X 3 r 5 •s $ • 1*1 =1g x x x April 19, 1984 MNUTES in progress. In addition, Commissioner Goff pointed out that Condition No. 5 provides that if the Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the com- munity, the'item can be reconsidered by the City and the use permit possibly revoked. Robert Williams, 438 North Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that his drive- way is blocked fifty percent of the time. In addition, Mr. Williama remarked that he does not think there is any parking provided for the employees of Le Biarritz. Mr. Williams then presented a letter from the residents of 428 North Newport Boulevard which also addressed park- ing concerns. Louanne Baker, 413 Bolmwood, appeared before the Planning Commission, and discussed her concerns relative to sound amplification. In addition, Ms. Baker commented that an increase in business will result in the need for more on- street parking, which she feels is more popular than on -site parking. Ms. Baker felt that such a need for additional on- street parking may result in increasing numbers of people parking in the neighboring residential areas. Chairman King responded that Le Biarritz is not requesting expansion of their facility, but rather the provision of dancing for their present customers. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 1053, sub- ject to the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit nAu Commissioner Kurlander questioned whether the maker of the motion would consider imposing an additional condition to require that employees of the Restaurant park on site. Commissioner King accepted this addition to his motion. The motion on the floor, as amended, was then voted on and CARRIED. Use Permit No. 1053 was thereby approved, subject to the following Findings and Conditions: -65- i • e 7c April 19, 1984 71 Findings: M MMS 1. That the existing and proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is com- patible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. That Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1053 (Amended) will not under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 1053 (Amended), approved by City Council on June 25, 1979, shall be fulfilled. 2. That the pick -up and delivery of automobiles in con - junction with the restaurant valet service shall be conducted on site and not within the public right-of- way- 3. That the applicant shall obtain a Cafe Dance Permit from the City of Newport Beach for the proposed dance floor. 4. That sound amplification equipment may be used in conjunction with the live entertainment and dancing. However. said music.shall be confined to the interior of the restaurant and all doors and windows in the restaurant shall be closed while such activities are in progress. 5. That the Planning Commission may add or modify condi- tions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the -66- e 7c f �ck W e i g April 19, 1984 M MNMS subject of this use permit causes injury or is detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 6. That restaurant employees shall park on site. A. Use Permit No. '1908'(Aneuded)'(Public Heating) I Item #10 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which U.P. #1908 allowed the addition of live entertainment and limited and Vari- use of an outdoor patio area with six tables and 24 ance 1111 seats, for the Amalfi Restaurant (formerly.the La Strada Restaurant). The proposed amendment involves a request Both to change certain conditions of approval so as to allow Approved the use of eight tables and 24 seats in the outdoor patio Condi- area and to allow the service of food and alcoholic bever- tionally ages within the outdoor patio area. AND B. Variance No. 1111 C Public Hearing) Request to waive all of the required off - street parking spaces in conjunction with the intensified use of an out- door patio area for dining and drinking purposes at the Amalfi Restaurant. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 158 -41 (Re- subdivision No. 645) located at 3520 East Coast Highway, between Narcissus Avenue and Orchid Avenue, in Corona del Mar, ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: Carmelo Manto, dba Amalfi, Newport Beach OWNER: First Interstate Bank, Newport Beach -67- Motion Ayes Absent Notion Ayes Alt u n C r c C.$ 7 C 0 i � ;ate x April 19, 1984 The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Hugh Coffin, Attorney, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Coffin reviewed specifics relating to the application and relayed that the Applicant believes the proposal for outdoor patio dining will be a positive amenity to the Corona del Mar environment. In addition, Mr. Coffin stated that the Applicant has read the staff.report and is in concurrence with all Conditions of Approval recommended therein. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 1908, sub- ject to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhibit "A" of the staff report, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made for approval of Variance No. 1111, subject to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhibit "A" of the staff report, which MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 1908 and Variance No. 1111 were hence approved, subject to the following Findings and Conditions: Findings: 1. That the proposed use of the front patio area of the restaurant for dining and drinking will not signifi- cantly increase the parking demand for the restaurant. 2. That the granting of a variance to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. The waiver of the additional parking spaces for the sub ject restaurant and the use of the front patio for dining and drinking purposes will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neigh- borhood of such proposed use or.be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbor- hood or the general welfare of the City. 4. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. and is compatible with surrounding land uses. -68- � x 0 IT i 9 April 19, 1984 M i 5. The Police Department has indicated that it does not contemplate any problems. MlMJTES 6. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. Conditions: 1. That all previous conditions of approval for Use Per- mit No. 1908 (Amended) as approved on June 23, 1983 shall be fulfilled, except as noted below. 2. That the project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans. 3. That the outdoor patio in front of the restaurant may be used for dining and drinking purposes, to include the service of alcoholic beverages. 4. That no more than eight tables and 24 seats shall be permitted in the patio area. 5. That the Planning Commission may add or modify condi- tions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. -69- A x f�c ' ■ 9 Motion Ayes x Absent x • April 19, 1984 ��. �- .� ►����. sue: __� Use Permit No. 1995 (Amended) (Public Hearing) MgVLM Request to amend a previously approved use permit that allowed the use of a relocatable modular building for a temporary retail flower establishment on property located in the P-C District. The proposed amendment involves a request to construct a temporary gazebo structure which will include the outdoor display of flowers on the subject property. LOCATION:` Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 73 -47 (Resub- division No. 496), located at 2166 East Coast Highway on the northerly side of East Coast Highway, between Avocado Avenue and Acacia Avenue, in Newport Center. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Flowerman, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Pete Rose, of Balboa Pacific, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Rose stated that the Applicant agrees to abide by the Conditions of Approval recommended by staff. Mr. Rose then advised that the Applicant is proposing minor modifications to the site plan and distributed copies of the amended site plan to the members of the Commission. Planning Director Hewicker clarified the site plan changes, advising that the gazebo structure is proposed to be relo- cated to the east and that the two handicapped parking stalls are proposed to be relocated slightly to the north. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 1995, sub- ject to the Findings and Conditions of Exhibit "A ", which motion CARRIED. -70- Item #11 U.P. #1995 Approved Condi- tionally COMA April 19, 1984 ANNUTES eC m III 7f m V € t M Finds s: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the Gener- al Plan and is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. 2. Adequate parking has been provided for the proposed development. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems with the proposed development. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1995 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neigh- borhood 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 plan and elevations. 2. That all previous conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1995 shall be fulfilled. 3. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1995 (Amended) shall run with the approval of Use Permit No. 1995 and any extension thereof shall be considered at the same time as the original Use Permit No. 1995. 4. Prior to the issuance of Building and Grading Permits authorized by the approval of this use permit, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the sub - ject area, to be used for circulation system improve- ments and noise walls. -71- COMMSSK)l Mi April 19, 1984 MINUTES A � � r S3 a = • • reAr Exception Permit No. 14 (Discussion) Item #12 Request to permit the installation of a roof - mounted pole Exception sign on an existing commercial building located in the C -1 Permit No. District. The proposed sign will also project 3 feet over 14 the public right -of -way. .Continued LOCATION: A portion of Lot 5, Block M, Tract No. 323, to May 10, located at 2756 East Coast Highway, on the 1984 northeasterly side of East Coast Highway, between.Goldenrod Avenue and Heliotrope Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Robert Forstrom, La Canada OWNER: Alex Pourgol, Huntington Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Robert Forstrom, Applicant, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission. Mr. Forstrom reviewed the alternatives he has investigated in an attempt to seek a viable solution to his signage problem. Mr. Forstrom advised that the store presently has a small, neon window sign that is visi- ble from approximately 25 feet from the southerly direction and approximately 50 feet from the northerly direction. Mr. Forstrom felt that a larger sign is needed inasmuch as he is at a significant economic disadvantage in light of the visibility associated with competitive ice cream stores in the area. Mr. Forstrom added that he is pro- posing a 4' by 6' sign. Commissioner Ring questioned whether Mr. Forstrom had con- sidered the store's visibility situation prior to opening the business. Mr. Forstrom responded that he did not understand the City's sign ordinance at that time and added that he was not aware that a sign erected on the front face of the building would be viewed as a roof sign. Current Planning Administrator Laycock clarified that a sign situated on the front portion of the building would not be considered a roof sign, unless it were placed above the roof. Mr. Laycock added that if the sign were situa- ted below the roof, it would be considered a projecting sign, which does not require an Exception Permit. -72- • Motion Ayes Absent • b,.CCMJV%JSSK)P4ER5 i April 19, 1984 WNLM 3 3 � %eo • x Ix M In view of the height of the building, Mr. Forstrom voiced concern that a sign situated on the front face of the structure would be limited to approximately 3' by 2', whick he felt would be unrecognizable from more than 25 or 30 feet away. Commissioner King noted the close intensification of busi- nesses in the area and voiced concern with the setting of a precedent which would result in a proliferation of com- petitive signs. Current Planning Administrator Laycock pointed out that the Sign Code would allow a projecting sign that is 14' above the sidewalk to encroach 4' over the property line. During the course of discussion, the Planning Commission noted various signage options, including the possibility of parapet walls and awning identification. Mr. Forstrom pointed out that Gelato Classico Italian Ice Cream is a franchised business and pointed out that the name must be advertised in a specific trademark fashion. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that there are signage options available to the Applicant. Therefore, motion was made to continue this item to the Planning Com- mission meeting of May 10, 1984, so as to allow time for the Applicant to work with staff and the Commissioners in an attempt to arrive at a smaller sign and at the same time accomplish the Applicant's goals for adequate signage of his business, which MOTION CARRIED. •left -73- ig m =i a 1105111 S e � � � • April 19, 1984 MNLnS Appeal of Debbie Gray from Staff's interpretation of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to the expira- tion date of Use Permit No. 2080 that permitted the con- struction of a retail commercial /office building and re- lated parking areas on the Fun Zone property on the Balboa Peninsula (Discussion). LOCATION: Lots 1 through 7, Block B, Bayside Tract and portions of Section 35, Township G South, Range 10 West, San Bernadino Meridian, located at 600 East Bay Avenue, bounded by East Bay Avenue, Washington Street, Palm Street and Newport Bay, in Central Balboa. ZONE: C -1 OWNER: Pun Zone Development Company, Newport Beach Commissioner Person stepped down from the dais and re- frained from deliberation on this agenda item. Debbie Gray, 746 Tustin Avenue, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission. Ms. Gray indicated that on duly 26, 1982, the City Council approved Use Permit No. 2080 for the redevelopment of the Fun Zone property. She added that one of the conditions imposed by the City was the requirement that demolition and construction will not occur during the summer months. It was further noted that the Municipal Code provides that a Use Permit will expire in 24 months from the date of approval if a building permit has not been issued prior to the expiration date. Me. Gray then re- quested that, in consideration of the fact that construc- tion cannot occur in the summer, that the Use Permit be extended to September 10, 1984. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Ms. Gray stated that it is possible that the plans could be submitted to the City within 69 days, but pointed out that she would have to pay overtime fees to have the plans prepared by that time. She also indicated that it is possible that the plans could be submitted the day before her permit expires, but pointed out that she would be unable to obtain a permit and activate same since con- struction is prohibited during the summer months. -74- • -CQMMISSQW1 April 19, 1984 . A414JTES A � • • Me Charles Terry, Architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant, and discussed the status of the plans, explaining that they are approxi- mately 35% complete. Mr. Terry estimated that the plans could be submitted to the City within the next 60 to 69 days. Mr. Terry also explained that the Building Director has indicated that it will take three to four weeks to review the plans, but added that the Applicant would be willing to pay overtime in an effort to expedite the plan - check process. In answer to a question posed by Chairman King, Ms. Gray stated that the bonds will be posted by the end of June. Planning Director Bewicker stated that the Building Code provides that once a permit is issued, the Applicant is allotted 120 days in which to commence construction. Therefore, Mr. Bewicker suggested the possibility of the permit being issued with a proviso that construction not commence until the day after Labor Day. Mr. Bewicker noted that such a proviso would enable construction to commence sometime between September 7th and 120 days there- after. Following discussion, Planning Commission decided that the project should be vested prior to the Use Permit being extended, i.e., that the bonds be posted, and the necessary documentation be submitted to the City and approved by July 26, 1984. Commissioner Balalis suggested that the Planning Commission require that the property be maintained, i.e., policed and kept clean, during the summer months. Ms. Gray indicated concurrence with this suggestion. Planning Director Bewicker pointed out that the City has received a request from a party desiring to essentially reestablish the old Fun Zone use, for a time not to exceed 90 days, during the summer. Mr. Hewicker then reviewed the timeframe associated with obtaining City and Coastal Commission approval, and pointed out that it would likely take to the end of July to gain the necessary approvals. Bence, Mr. Hewicker pointed out that approximately one month would be available for this temporary use. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this issue should be set for public hearing on May 10, 1984 to clarify the vesting provisions contained in the approval of the original.use permit, and then re- calendar the -75- COAAMIS5OhWl April 19, 1984 M MMES A Q m 33 O 3 3+ e S w Motion A Ain Absent r1 LJ M : M Wl item for final review on July 19, 1984 (the last meeting prior to the expiration of the Use Permit.) Planning Director Hewicker questioned whether the Appli- cant would work with staff with respect to providing the necessary addresses and labels for the mailing of the public notices. Ms. Gray indicated that she would provide the City with the necessary mailing materials. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Applicant should be given some means of assurance by the Commission relative to the request, so that they may pro- ceed with the drawing of the plans. Consequently, during the course of discussion, Commissioners Balalis, King, Kurlander, and Goff indicated that they would be.willing to support the extension request if the project is vested prior to the July 26, 1984 date. Motion was made to set this issue for hearing on May 10, 1984,.to clarify the vesting issue and conditions of approval of the original use permit, which.MOTION CARRIED. • * r Chairman King referred to a letter from Jack Love, dated Mod. #2931 April 14, 1984, which requested that the Planning Commis- (Request sion reconsider its action taken in connection with Modi- for Recon- fication No. 2931 (Solar Greenhouse - 1407 Seacrest, sideration Corona del Mar). Following review, the Planning Commission decided against reconsideration of the subject item. Denied Planning Commission scheduled a discussion of the proposed R UDAT Specific Area Plan for McFadden Square /Cannery Village for its Study Session on May 24, 1984 at 3:00 p.m. Set for Discussion * ** on 52484 Study There being no further business, the Planning Commission Session adjourned at 12:40 a.m. James Person, Secretary Newport Beach City Planning Commission -76-