The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/09/1988COMMISSIONERS 9 y�G�y o��9ff �0 � vy REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION.MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: June 9, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RoLWALL INDEX Present * * * * * * Commissioner Koppelman was absent. Absent EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Rewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of May 19. 1988: Minutes of -19 -88 Motion x Motion was made and voted on to approve the May 19, x x * x x x 1988, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. t Public Comments: ublic No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. omments Posting of the Agenda: Posting of James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the he Agenda Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 3, 1988, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuance: quest for James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the ontinuance applicant, Jerry Adams, has requested that Item No. 4, Use Permit No. 3315 regarding the construction of two residential dwelling units located at 508 - 29th Street, be continued to the June 23, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. He further stated that staff has requested that Items No. 8, Amendment No. 665, to establish a • Governmental, Educational,. and Institutional Facilities Zoning District, and No. 9, Amendment No. 666, pertaining to the distribution of public notices for proposed amendments, be continued to the June 23, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSIONERS Ah vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROMULL INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue the foregoing Ayes. * * * * * * Items No. 4, No. 8, and No. 9 to the June 23, 1988, Absent * Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Resubdivision No. 867 (Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to resubdivide three existing parcels of land into four parcels for office development, on property 8867 located in Industrial Site 3A of the Newport Place Planned Community. Approved LOCATION: Parcels No. 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 86- 33,34 (Resubdivision No. 529) and Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 57 -1 (Resubdivision No. 406), located at 3636 Birch Street on northeasterly corner of Bristol Street North and Birch Street, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Wattson Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: California Civil Inc., Costa Mesa The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time.. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision Ayes * * * * * * No. 876 subject to the findings and conditions in Absent * Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of• the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of 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 COMMISSIONERS _ IrC 11� 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 R ALL INDEX 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. Said Parcel Map shall be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard Subdivision Agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public • improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 5. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown of standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 6. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 8. That a recorded reciprocal easement be provided for ingress, egress and parking for the mutual benefit of Parcels No. 1, 2 and 3 within this subdivision. 9. That each building be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. -3- COMMISSIONERS .e •Q_ af�•f. O.O� A 9i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 R ALL INDEX 10. That the intersection of the private drives and streets be designed to provide sight distances 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 sight distance line shall not exceed twenty four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non- critical locations, subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 11. The landscape plans shall be subject to the approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. 12. That a full width sidewalk, six (6) feet wide be constructed along the Bristol Street North and Birch Street frontages; that a curb access ramp be constructed at the intersection of Bristol Street North and Birch Street per City Standard 181 -L; that the drive apron on Birch Street be constructed per City Standard 166 -L; and, that the drive apron • design on Bristol Street North be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. All work along the Birch Street frontage shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. All work along the Bristol Street North frontage shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 13. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer, and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. The study shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities,. to minimize impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 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 applicant. 14. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the • Planning Commission. -4- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 9, 1988 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3313 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to permit the construction of a second dwelling UP3313 unit (Granny Unit) in conjunction with the construction of a single family dwelling on property which contains nied less than 2,000 sq.ft, of land located in the R -2 District. Said proposal is in accordance with the provisions of, Section 65552.1 of the California Government Code that permits a second dwelling if said residence is intended for one or two persons who are 60 . years of age or over. LOCATION: Lot 22, Block 41, River Section, located at 113 41st Street, on the northwesterly side of 41st Street, between Seashore Drive and West Balboa Boulevard, in West Newport. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Yalcin Cakmak, Mission Viejo • OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Ron Knudson, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Knudson stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A ". The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3313 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Chairman Pers6n stated that he would not support the motion based on the inadequate lot size of less than 2,000 square feet, and that the second dwelling unit could be setting a precedent in the area. Commissioner Debay stated that she would not support the motion because of the inadequate lot size, that the subject area is overcrowded, and the second dwelling unit could set a precedent in the area. Substitute Substitute motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3313 n * subject to the findings in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Pomeroy indicated that the staff. report states that "the proposed project conforms to all -5- COMMISSIONERS 0 Noes Absent i* i* * MINUTES June 9, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH requirements for 'Granny Units' and for new development in the R -2 District. ", and he questioned why the project would set a precedent? James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the foregoing statement is not entirely true based upon the amount of square footage in the subject lot inasmuch as under normal circumstances the subject R -2 lot would not support a second dwelling unit. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Assistant City Attorney Carol Korade explained that the State Law does not preempt local government from exercising reasonable rules. Chairman Pers6n stated that the Planning Commission is given that discretion inasmuch as applicants must apply for a use permit. Mr. Hewicker stated that the provisions of the State Law regarding second units requires the Planning Commission to approve a project if an applicant has applied for a use permit and has met all of the State standards; however, if the applicant does not meet all of the Granny Unit standards, the Planning Commission would have some discretion. Substitute motion was voted on to deny Use Permit No. 3313 subject to the Findings in Exhibit "B ". MOTION CARRIED. 1. That the size of the subject property is inadequate to accommodate more than one dwelling inasmuch as it is less than 2,000 square feet in area. 2. That the Zoning Code permits only one dwelling unit on R -2 lots which are less than 2,000 square feet in area. 3. That the approval of this application will seta precedent which will serve to encourage similar applications for Granny Units on substandard .R -2 lots. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3313 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 or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. IQ INDEX COMMISSIONERS is a MINUTES June 9. 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Use Permit No. 3314 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit alterations and additions to an existing film store with an existing drive -up photo window on property located in the C -1 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit: a portion of the required off - street parking to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback, adjacent to an alley; to allow the construction of a new trash enclosure that also encroaches 9 feet 6 inches into the required 10 foot rear yard setback; and to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking. LOCATION: Lots 20, 21 and 22, Block 3, East Newport, located at 500 West Balboa Boulevard on the northwesterly corner of West Balboa Boulevard and Island Avenue, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Robert C. Durkee, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, -.Planning Director, commented that the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property for multiple family uses; however, the upgrade of the property for commercial use and the likelihood of the property being multiple family is rather remote. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Robert Durkee, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit. "A ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner.Di Sano, Mr. Durkee replied that the ambience of the proposed project will blend with the adjacent property. . Mr. Jim Crane, appeared before the Planning Commission to support the proposed project. The public hearing was closed at this time. * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No 3314 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit -7- INDEX No. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 0 N June 9, 1988 An oy \\\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROWCALL INDEX Ayes * * . "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Absent * Findings: 1. 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 modifications. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Adequate off - street parking is being provided in . conjunction with the proposed development. 5. The proposed number of compact parking spaces constitutes 18 percent of the parking requirement which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applications. 6. That public improvements may be required of a. developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 7. The approval of the subject application 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; and further, that the proposed modifications to as to allow the use of compact parking spaces and to allow the requested rear yard encroachments are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. • -8- COMMISSIONERS 0 MINUTES June 9, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Conditions: 1. That the proposed alterations and additions to the existing film store shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. 3. That the relocated drive - through facility shall not be used in conjunction with the rental or return of video movies. A sign shall be_ posted adjacent to the drop -off window, stating that the subject window shall not be used for said purpose. 4. That a minimum of 11 parking spaces shall be provided for the commercial development on the site. 5. That the employee of the camera store shall be required to park his or her vehicle on -site. 6. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of a Coastal Permit. 7. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department 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. 9. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 10. That the .existing driveway apron on Island Avenue be removed and replaced with concrete curb and gutter under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. -9- INDEX COMMISSIONERS .p .Q Am I �Z 9CC vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 R CALL INDEX 11. That the existing driveway apron on West Balboa Boulevard be reconstructed to fit the existing drive entrance under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department, 12. That the proposed trash enclosure shall be designed so as to insure that no portion of the enclosure gate shall swing into the public alley. 13. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 14. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health; safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. Use Permit No. 3315 (Public Hearing Item No.4 Request to permit the construction of two residential dwelling units which exceed the basic height limit in UP3315 the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District on property located in the "Retail Service Commercial Area" of the Continued Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The to 6 -23 -88 proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the second and third floor portions of the building to encroach 5 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley; and to allow the use of a compact parking space for a portion of the required off - street parking. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 95 -2, (Resubdivision No. 528), located at 508 29th Street, on the southeasterly side of 29th Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Jerry Adams, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant _10 COMMISSIONERS y�G N9y (( ($9y Ah CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 R ALL INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the June 23, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. Ayes * * * * * 3315 to the June 23, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Absent * MOTION CARRIED. A. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.S Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the Ts construction of 120 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P -C District. UP3312 • AND Approved B. Use Permit No. 3312 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a 120 unit elderly personal care facility on .property located in the P -C District. The proposal also includes: a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the .basic height limit.in the 32/50 Height Limitation District;. a request to construct a.flag pole on top of the structure which exceeds 50 feet in height; a request to establish an off - street parking requirement based on . a demonstrated formula; and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full time valet parking service. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map. 85 -257 (Resubdivision No. 811), located at 3901 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly cornet of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Emerald Associates, Newport Beach • OWNER: A.T. Leo's Inc., Irvine -11- COMMISSIONERS 0 Z CC C�9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROMFICALL INDEX Mr. Jon Christeson, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that subsequent to the April 21, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, the applicants met with the TransAmerica representatives who would be operating the facility, Mr. Victor Regnier, Architect, and the property owners in the area. Mr. Christeson stated that the meetings resulted in 11 design changes, and he withdrew to the display area to address said changes. Mr. Christeson explained that units were removed and shifted; front and rear yard setbacks were increased; that 11 parking spaces were added; the building height was reduced; that the number of units was reduced from 120 to 108; that the square footage of the building was reduced from 66,000 square feet to 56,740 square feet; the Floor Area Ratio was reduced from .99 FAR to .849 FAR; that the open space was increased from 57 percent to 60 percent; that the existing restaurant and shops generate 670 trips per day compared to the proposed 278 trips per day; and the Victor Regnier, Architect, study_ states that the proposed project will produce 162 trips per day. Mr. Christeson referred to Mr. Regnier's study datedrJune 3, • 1988, that compares facilities in the Beverly Hills area to the proposed project, and he stated that the highest parking demand of the facilities was .17 parking spaces per unit compared to the proposed 51 parking spaces for 108 units or a ratio of .47 spaces per unit. Mr. Christeson compared the building height of The Five Crowns Restaurant of 32.5 feet to the proposed project's eastern most Wings A & B of 28 feet, and Wings C & D, the western most portion of the site, of 29 feet. Mr. Christeson stated that the proposed project with the exception of the cupola is under the height of The Five Crowns Restaurant. Mr. Christeson stated that the proposed project is similar to a two -story building; that the third story is hidden in the roof so that what is seen is a two -story building; that the elevation closest to East Coast Highway is 14 feet above the sidewalk; and that the elevation adjacent to The Five Crowns Restaurant is 18 feet above the sidewalk. He described the project's frontage area; that 35 percent of the building is sunken into two lower basements that are below the plane of the sidewalk; and that the Floor Area Ratio of the above grade portion including the unseen attic in the third floor is .55 FAR. • In conclusion, Mr. Christeson quoted from Mr. Regnier's foregoing letter in which Mr: Regnier stated that "..I am impressed with the careful approach you have taken in -12- COMMISSIONERS vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX developing both the architectural and the human services' concept. It is an exemplary development that will set a precedent for quality and innovation." In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Christeson replied that the applicants met with representatives of the Shore Cliffs Homeowner's Association, Cameo Highlands Homeowner's Association, and the Neighbors to Preserve Corona del Mar on three separate occasions following the April 21, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jim Crane, 323 Driftwood Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Crane stated that he had conducted a delivery truck traffic survey of The Five Crowns Restaurant from June 2 through June 7, and that the number of trucks that had entered and departed said site numbered from 10 trucks to 18 trucks on a daily basis. He concluded that the proposed project would have similar delivery truck service; however, said trucks would have to make a U -turn at either Seaward Road or Morning Canyon Road. Discussion ensued between • Mr. Crane, Chairman Pers6n, and Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the subject site which has an approved use permit allowing a restaurant operation, and that the subject restaurant has an equal number of delivery trucks as the proposed project. Mr. Len Seltzer, Chairman of the Neighbors to Preserve Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the committee met with the applicants on June 1, 1988, that they were denied access to the plans, and that they did not have input into the proposed project. He stated that the committee concluded that the applicants made minimal changes to the proposed project since the April 21, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, including proximities to Buck Gully, inadequate parking, traffic congestion, safety, and precedent setting nature of the development. He commented that the committee is concerned that the General Plan review does not include the 'subject site, and they have requested an intensity.and density be established on the site to recognize the special nature of Corona del Mar. Mr. Seltzer stated that the traffic on East Coast Highway through Corona del Mar is overloaded, and the density should be thoroughly investigated before any Increase is warranted. Mr. Seltzer stated that the • committee opposes the proposed project; however, if the applicants constructed a facility that would include a low profile building in keeping with the character of -13- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 9, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Corona del Mar, it could then answer the environmental concerns, parking, traffic and safety problems that concern the residents. He contended that the applicants have underestimated the number proposed for staff and the parking needs for the 122 residents, and he commented on the concerns that the residents have regarding emergency vehicles. Mr. Seltzer requested a citizen's panel to discuss the best use of the subject site that would satisfy the Planning Commission and serve the community. Mr. Seltzer referred to the reasons why the Planning Commission denied the Crown House project on the site in October, 1985, and he stated that the same reasons should be applied for the proposed project. Mr. Seltzer stated that the Steering Committee for the Neighbors to Preserve Corona del Mar consists of Marian Parks, Fred Andresen, Oakley Frost, Dick Nichols, and Bill De Mayo. Mrs. Marian Parks, resident of Shore Cliffs, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Shore Cliffs Homeowner's Association. She referred to said Association's letter dated June 7, 1988, opposing the subject project because of the size and scope of the development, the probability that Shore Cliffs will be used for employee and visitor parking, and the increased traffic impact in Shore Cliffs. Mr. Fred Andresen appeared before the Planning Commission to read a letter that had been submitted to the Planning Commission by Mrs. Judy Dobbs, a resident of Shore Cliffs. The letter stated that Mr. and Mrs. Dobbs owned and operated a similar facility to Emerald Village in Orange County, and she stated their concerns regarding the project based on their experiences as follows: the parking lot was filled with resident,' visitor, and employee vehicles; traffic from delivery trucks and resident transportation throughout the day; safety for the residents who need additional care inasmuch as the facility would be on a busy thoroughfare; daily trash pickups; emergency equipment several times a week; community meetings and special events were held at the facility on a regular basis; and consideration for the safety of the Shore Cliffs residents. • Mr. Oakley Frost, 416 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He referred to the Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger letter dated June 6, 1988, which states that based on the population and building intensities set -14- COMMISSIONERS 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9,.1988 ROL CALL INDEX forth in the General Plan Land Use Element, it is not possible for the Planning Commission to proceed with the project. He stated that the applicants informed the ad hoc committee that economically they could not reduce the project. Mr. Frost contended that the subject facility is not an appropriate use of the property, and he explained why an Environmental Impact Report is necessary. He further stated his concerns regarding the financial success of the project. Discussion ensued between Mr. Frost and Chairman Pers6n if the Planning Commission has, the right to consider the economic feasibility of a project. Mr. Frost stated that the City could be legally liable for residents residing in the facility who are not capable of taking care of themselves and who could wander from the site. Commissioner Debay referred to the Initial .Study conducted on the Crown House, and to.a memorandum dated. April 21, 1988, from Robert Burnham, City Attorney to the Planning Commission in response to concerns expressed by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Attorneys, that the City is currently in the process of updating the General Plan Land Use Element for the purpose of establishing non - residential intensities. She indicated that the proposed project is almost classified as residential, and that multi - residential was mentioned by the Corona del Mar ad hoc committee. Commissioner Debay commented that the environment has not changed since the Initial Study was written. Assistant City Attorney Korade stated that the economics of a project are not part of a particular factor to be considered in granting a particular use permit or review a particular traffic study, that it is outside of the scope of the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission as defined by the Municipal Code. In reference to potential liability, Ms. Korade explained that there are discretionary immunities that the City carries in granting use permits, and presuming that the Planning Commission is acting in good faith, the Commission would be immune from any type of liability for its actions. In response to a concern posed by Mr. Frost, Chairman Pers6n explained that if the application would be approved by the Planning Commission, that the subject facility would be the only approved use, and another use would have to come back to the Planning Commission for discretionary approval. i -15- COMMISSIONERS \rlrvlko� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX Mr. Hewicker advised that a letter had been received from Mr. James T. Capretz, Capretz & Kasdan, Attorneys, regarding the subject project. Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichols presented a history of development for the subject site because he felt that it was important while the Planning Commission was considering the zoning of the property. He addressed the buffer that existed between the commercial and residential areas; the setbacks; the lot lines; the previous uses on the subject property; he suggested that the property should be restored; that the property had been previously used as a parking lot and he indicated that parking lots previously have been approved in the R -2 District adjacent to commercial areas throughout Corona del Mar; that the natural grade on the rear portion of the property is below the existing grade; that the proposed wing of the structure closest to Buck Gully is over the allowable height on the residential property; the residential property height limit is still shown on the City Map and anything in the residential area should be that height; that the natural grade has been enforced throughout the City; and that it is not possible to tell the proposed height of the structure from the building plans. Mrs. Karen Cross, 525 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cross stated that her husband is a member of the Los Angeles Fire Department and she addressed the following concerns: that the residents will increase the medical responses of the Fire Department; traffic will be increased into and out of the complex; that it would be difficult to maneuver emergency equipment at the rear of the facility adjacent to Hazel Drive; and emergency equipment on East Coast Highway will create additional traffic problems. Mr. Cole Behringer, 421 Surrey Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Behringer stated that his profession relates to geriatrics, and that it is his opinion the proposed ratio of staff to patients is under- mentioned. Mrs. Pat Shapiro, 287 Evening Canyon Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that the proposed use would create more traffic than the current uses, that there would be more delivery traffic; and • that the employees would deplete the proposed parking spaces. Chairman Pers6n and Mrs. Shapiro compared the -16- COMMISSIONERS - 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX proposed use with the previous restaurants that have operated on the site, and the traffic and parking that could be created by a successful restaurant in the future. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. Mr. Bernard Berg, 532 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Berg questioned the analogy of previous statements regarding the number of trips, required parking spaces, and employee parking of the proposed project to a successful restaurant. Discussion ensued between Chairman Pers6n and Mr. Berg regarding the comparisons. Commissioner Debay commented that the Planning Commission depends upon data received from experts for professional advise to determine traffic analysis, etc. Mr. Haskel Shapiro, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he is an engineer who has given expert advise, and he explained that it would be • very difficult to predict traffic comparisons between a successful restaurant and the visitor traffic generated during the spring or summer to the proposed facility. Ms. Deborah Grosher, 703 Poinsettia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. She questioned the comparison to the intersections of the Beverly Hills facilities inasmuch as the East Coast Highway traffic is the only inlet and outlet going to Laguna Beach. She stated that East Coast Highway cannot accommodate any increase in traffic. Mr. Dan Wiseman, 336 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he is concerned that there will be employee parking on Hazel Drive, and he suggested that the facility should be penalized if the employees parked illegally. Mr. Wiseman commented that the proposed development would encroach into,Buck Gully and he stated his concerns regarding the environment. Mr. Dick Spehn, 2888 Bayshore Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the traffic would be incredible considering the proposed development in • the Downcoast area adjacent to Corona del.Mar. Mr. Jon Christeson, applicant, reappeared before the Planning Commission in rebuttal to previous testimony. -17- COMMISSIONERS y Fc°o4,�d yG 9ip y9 q v 9x vy . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX He stated that the bus transportation goes in front of the site; that the staff ratio was developed by TransAmerica who operate 22 facilities; that the Fire Department will review the plans for the highest possible fire rating; that the staff is trained to prevent emergencies; that there is a 1.5 FAR for residential use in Corona del Mar and the applicants are requesting a .849 FAR; that the project would reduce traffic; that the employee shift changes would be made so there would not be an overlap for employee parking; that based on a survey that the applicants had taken there would be sufficient parking spaces considering the number of visitors that would be visiting the residents; that the original Crown House project proposed 111,000 square feet and the proposed project has been reduced to one -half of that project; that a precedent has been set inasmuch as a residence has been constructed four to five stories into Buck Gully; that there is a visual .55 FAR; and he concluded by stating that the proposed project has achieved architectural and traffic solutions. Mr. Len Seltzer, reappeared before the Planning Commission and he emphasized that the vast majority of the residents of Corona del Mar oppose the project inasmuch as the impact on the community would be enormous. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and staff regarding the buildable area not including Buck Gully. Commissioner Di Sano stated that the applicants and the residents have made legitimate points; the site has been designated for a senior citizen housing facility; that the residents in the area do have a right to a particular ambience; the uses that have been on the site have not previously been successful; that he would like to see a similar project to the subject facility succeed; and that the applicants have attempted to bring some form of acceptance to the residents. Motion x Motion was made to approve the Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 3312 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A "; however, the Floor Area Ratio shall be . reduced from .849 FAR to .80 FAR. -18- COMMISSIONERS dG � 9N 9y'OO 9 " Cf swvt CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX Commissioner Merrill stated that he would not support the motion inasmuch as he had concerns that problems emanating from the facility could be locked -in and it would be difficult to solve any problems once the complex is built. Commissioner Debay stated that she would support the motion. She considered private property rights; that residents have the right to request what they desire in their neighborhood; that the developer has attempted to produce a fine project that is needed; and that she has to believe the information that was provided to the Planning Commission by experts. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support the motion, and he addressed the high quality of the architecture that is in character with the neighborhood; the reduction of the buildable area; the increase in setbacks; the additional parking spaces; the reduction in traffic that the project would generate; that the residents do not want the project there but they do not know what they want; that the proposed use would be • better than the present uses; that there is a need to provide this type of housing for Newport Beach residents; and that there is more safety in the proposed use than having a restaurant with people leaving intoxicated between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight. Amended x Commissioner Winburn requested that the motion be amended to include the increase in the square footage of parking spaces proportionately from the reduced FAR as stated in the motion. The maker of the motion concurred with the request to the amendment. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Commissioner Winburn stated that there would be no change in the number of dwelling units. Chairman Pers6n stated that he would support the motion hesitantly; that the developer has reasonable rights to develop the property; that the project has been reduced to approximately one -half of the square footage that the Planning Commission denied for the Crown House and that was subsequently approved by the City Council; that the Floor Area Ratio would be reduced and the number of parking spaces would be increased; in comparison to alternative uses, the traffic could be far worse; that historically the subject site is difficult to develop; and that Condition No. 69 states that if it is determined that the health, safety, or welfare of the community is damaged, the Planning Commission has the -19 COMMISSIONERS yOG 90 99 %b 9 m9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 RO ALL INDEX ability to bring the use permit back to the Planning Commission so as to modify the conditions of approval, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of the use permit. Motion was voted on to approve Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 3312 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including Condition No. 71 requesting Ayes * * * * * that the Floor Area Ratio be reduced from .849 FAR to Noes * .80 FAR, and that the reduced .buildable area be Absent + converted into parking spaces. MOTION CARRIED. A. 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. The project, as proposed, will generate less traffic than the uses which currently exist on -site in the evening peak hour on a daily basis. 3. The increased traffic in the morning peak hour is less than 108 of existing traffic on any approach leg of affected intersections. B. Use Permit No. 3312 Findings: 1. 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 modifications, the height of the flag pole, and the use permit for the excess building height. 2. 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. 3. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular • circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. -20- COMMISSIONERS .p •oe �<n }p Oi'. stn Allk ��p ypQN 9 9, Gyy �y ! C y0 C �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 RoLWALL INDEX 4. The building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 5. The 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. 6. The building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces inasmuch as the project has provided increased setbacks from public streets and. adjoining residential property. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. 8. That the height of the flag pole located on top of the proposed elevator and stair tower is acceptable • inasmuch as it is a minor architectural feature which is in keeping with the style and architecture of the building. 9. 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 with the proposed development. 10. That the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full -time valet parking service 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 or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifications are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 11. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. • 12. That Section 13.05.010 of the Municipal Code requires that public improvements be completed in commercial areas prior to the issuance of Building -21- COMMISSIONERS g ymG9y ONOy CC90 Ask CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 R ALL INDEX Permits fora new structure. 13. That the sidewalk along East Coast Highway is the only pedestrian access between the Shorecliffs Development and the business district of Corona del Mar on the southerly side of East Coast Highway. 14. That a Negative Declaration with supporting Initial Study was previously certified by the City Council in conjunction with the approval of Use Permit No. 3155. The information contained in that environmental document is adequate for this project in that the environmental effects are similar to the previous project and no additional mitigation measures are needed. No additional environmental documentation is required. 15. The approval of Use Permit No. 3312 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 or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City; and further, the proposed modification so as to allow tandem parking spaces is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 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 a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with 'a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any modifications or extension to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to -22- COMMISSIONERS m T 9 '•°0 9 v G9y mGyyC f y0 � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 RO CALL INDEX guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer and shall be modified in the following manner: a. Access to the subterranean parking area shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. b. Parking shall not be permitted within the circular motor court so as to provide required emergency vehicle access to the project. C. That the planter at the center of the circular motor court shall be redesigned to Fire Department standards. d. That the driveway design shall conform to Standard Plan 110 -L. e. That the proposed drives and ramps shall not exceed a 15 percent slope with change of grade not to exceed 12 percent. f. A minimum five foot sidewalk shall be provided on the west side of the driveway. 6. That an access ramp be constructed per City Standard No. 181 -L at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive; that unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages; and that all deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages. 7. That all work within the East Coast Highway right- of -way be completed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 8. That the intersection of the East Coast Highway and • drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 mile per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping -23- COMMISSIONERS o� AG �j�1 �.pAA 9 9l, _ Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9 1988 RO ALL INDEX within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 9. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits 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 City's Utilities Department and the Orange County Sanitation District. 10. County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. That a minimum of 51 offstreet parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed development. 12. Construction shall meet the requirements of the UBC and the California Administrative Codes - Titles 19 and 24. 13. Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 14. The entire building shall be sprinklered. 15. The building shall be equipped with smoke detectors and a fire alarm system. 16. All exit stairways must lead to an exit path that is continuous to a public way. 17. Access to the building for Fire Department use shall occur at each exit point and the main lobby. 18. Class I standpipes shall be required at locations to be designated by the Fire Department. 19. Consideration of the use of ramps and exiting may have to be given in building design if non- ambulatory residents occupy the building. 20. Final plans shall be approved by the Fire • Department. The Fire Department may request additional setbacks on Buck Cully in order to provide emergency access. -24- COMMISSIONERS yy C y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 RCMFCALL INDEX 21. That valet parking service be provided at all times. 22. That all employees shall park their vehicles on- site. 23. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Hazel Drive, East Coast Highway and adjoining properties. 24. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Section 20.06.050 A3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. This shall not preclude the applicant from requesting a modification for the size, number and location of proposed project signs in accordance with Section 20.06.100 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.' 25. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the public right -of -way be approved by the Public Works • Department. 26. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 27. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, and the approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 28. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 29. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation, and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 30. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light -25- COMMISSIONERS 9y9 pZ �f gyp _ y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 R ALL INDEX source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical En- gineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 31. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 32. 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. 33. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 34. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 35. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 36. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive 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. 37. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 38. That erosion control measures be done shall on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or -26- COMMISSIONERS mG C 5410 C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROMPbALL INDEX as approved by the Grading Engineer. 39. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. 40. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified engineer, practicing in acoustics, and be approved by the Planning Department. 41. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water- saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 42. All on -site drainage shall be approved by the City Grading Engineer. 43. The interior noise levels of the units shall not exceed 45 dB CNEL, and shall be verified by acoustical studies for all units. 44. The exterior living areas of the units shall not exceed 65 dB CNEL, and shall be verified by an engineer specializing in acoustics. 45. A notice of start of construction and a proposed construction schedule shall be provided to all residents and property owners within 300 feet in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department. 46. A haul route permit, approved by the City Traffic Engineer, shall be required prior to approval of a grading permit. 47. All parking and other on -site paved surfaces shall be routinely vacuum -swept weekly and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried into the drainage system. 48. Drainage facilities shall be properly maintained by the applicant and all subsequent owners /operators. • 49. Drainage improvements shall divert runoff from the adjacent natural slope to reduce water seepage and the risk of potential slope instability problems. -27- COMMISSIONERS q .off sf0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROLREPPCALL INDEX 50. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided to enable windows to be closed. 51. All windows and doors facing East Coast Highway shall have a sound transmission class rating of at least 27. 52. Balcony walls may be required to be raised or balconies enclosed with green houses to sound attenuate exterior living areas to 65 dB CNEL or less. 53. Party walls and floor /ceiling assemblies must be designed to have a sound transmission class rating of 50. Floor /ceiling assemblies must be designed to have a impact insulation class (IIC) rating of 50. 54. All windows and doors of all units in the project shall be tight fitting, well sealed, and weather - stripped assemblies. 55. Openings in the building shells such as wall - mounted air conditioners, exhausts, vents, etc., must be eliminated or acoustically treated to prevent noise leaks to the interiors. 56. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. Construction activities shall not be allowed on Sunday or holidays. 57. The excavation area shall be fenced to prevent safety hazards during the grading and building phases. 58. Control techniques shall be used to reduce fugitive dust generation including watering or the reduction of surface wind speed using windbreaks or source enclosures. Watering, the most common and generally least expensive method for dust control, provides up to 50 percent control. 59. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local -28- COMMISSIONERS � qti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROMEALL INDEX requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 60. That construction equipment and operations shall not block or utilize any of the parkway area, except during the time the sidewalk and drives are being repaired and replaced. A plan shall be submitted showing how the building will be constructed without using the public right -of -way for shoring, excavation, material storage, or any other operation that will interfere with pedestrian movement in the parkway area. This requirement may require that the proposed building and underground parking structure maintain an increased setback from Hazel Drive and East Coast Highway, This plan shall be approved by the Building and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of grading permits. 61. That off - street parking be provided either on -site or in an off -site parking location during • construction of the project with a convenient shuttle for all construction personnel. 62. That a lane closure permit shall be obtained from the Business License Department and the California Department of Transportation for all off -site deliveries of materials to the subject property. 63. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. 64. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 65. That the plans be modified to show the existing corner cut -off at the southeasterly corner of East. Coast Highway and Hazel Drive and that the proposed • building shall not encroach into the corner cut -off area. -29- COMMISSIONERS dG 9N 9984 9 'Yf, 7y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 R CALL INDEX 66. That it is the intention of this use permit to constitute the official zoning of the subject property in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and said use permit shall run with the life of the property or until such time as the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan are amended. 67. Occupancy of the facility shall be limited to persons 62 years of age or older. (A younger spouse of a qualified resident may occupy the facility.) State law may further restrict occupancy to persons 62 years of age or older. 68. Ancillary commercial uses in the structure shall be for the use of residents and their guests and shall not be available to members of the general public. 69. 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 detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 70. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.08.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 71. That the Floor Area Ratio of the project shall be reduced from .849 FAR to .80 FAR, and that the reduction of buildable area (i.e. .049 FAR) shall be converted into additional parking spaces. (This results in a net reduction of 3,272 square feet and a net increase of 3 parking spaces). The Planning Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m, and reconvened at 10:00 p.m. • -30- COMMISSIONERS .p " 0��%�� 9y . pr pia Am y�G9N�y�ffQ%b � o 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 RO= CALL INDEX Tentative Main of Tract No. 13577 (Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to subdivide two existing lots into three lots TTM13577 for two family residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. The proposal also Denied - includes a request for exceptions to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of two corner parcels which contain less than 6,000 sq.ft. of land area and are less than 60 feet average width, and one interior lot containing an average width of less than 50 feet. The proposal also includes a request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 25 so as to revise the front yard setback designations for the subject property. LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Tract No. 27, located at 3235 -3245 Clay Street, on the southerly side of Bolsa Avenue, between Broad Street and Clay Street, in Newport Heights. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Bate and Lyons Investment Co., Costa Mesa OWNER: Plymouth Congregational Church, Newport Beach ENGINEER: W. R. Haynes & Co., Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that staff has requested that the following two Findings be revised inasmuch as the staff report was inaccurate: Finding No. 6: "..a majority of the.." be deleted and said finding shall be modified to state: "That the average width and area of Lots 1 and 3 of the proposed subdivision are acceptable, inasmuch as they are comparable to other R -2 corner lots within the neighborhood. .... ". Finding No. 10: "..a majority of the corner lots.kithin the surrounding neighborhood are similar to the corner lots proposed by the applicant." be deleted and "..there are three existing corner lots within the surrounding neighborhood that are less than 6,000 square feet and nine corner lots that are less than 60 feet wide.." shall be added. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff incorrectly calculated the number of corner lots in the area that were 6,000 square feet and 60 feet wide. He pointed out • that staff has distributed a new map that shows the accurate number of corner lots that are less than 6,000 square feet and the number of corner lots that are less -31- COMMISSIONERS so�s�"� mG�;,��9y'OAq sk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 RMFCALL INDEX than 60 feet wide. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Ms. Dana Bate, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. She commented that she had a meeting with the Newport Heights Community Association. Ms. Bate stated that the proposed six units to be developed on two lots is not out of character with the adjacent neighborhood inasmuch as many of the lots are either undersized or underwidth. Ms. Bate stated that she concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of Condition No. 11 requesting a 20 foot front yard setback on the front of Lot No. 3 adjacent to Bolsa Avenue. Ms. Bate stated that she is, requesting a 15 foot front yard setback on Lot 3 because there is only a 15 foot front yard setback on Broad Street, and the project consists of two detached units fronting on Clay Street. She commented that the front yard setback on Lot 3 will be on Bolas Avenue because that is the narrow part of the lot, and the rear yard • setback will be abutting an existing duplex on Clay Street. Ms. Bate stated that the 10 foot rear yard setback and the 15 foot front yard setback on Lot 3 would make the project look proportionate. She stated that she would not object to moving the driveways. In reference to Condition No. 1 requesting "that a final tract map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits ", Ms. Bate requested that the condition be amended to state "that building permits would be issued upon the City's receipt of the County Surveyor's Check Letter." Don Webb, City Engineer, responded that staff would approve "unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department." He explained that it is illegal to build over lot lines in accordance with the Uniform Building Code; therefore the applicant would not be able to build.until the map has been recorded. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the City issues Building Permits when the map is being delivered to the County Recorder for recordation, and they produce a receipt that the map has been filed. He further explained that the applicant would be creating new lots to develop a condominium project, and until the map goes to the recorder there is no guarantee that it would ever be recorded. • In conclusion, Ms. Bate stated that because of the configuration of the lots that she would have to provide -32- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 R CALL INDEX reverse corner lot setbacks on two of the lots, which provides more than the standard setback, and she emphasized that the development has substantial open space. Ms. Shari Rooks, 3308 Clay Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed project. She referred to her letter that she submitted. to the Planning Commission dated June 8, 1988, letters from local property owners, and a signed petition. Ms. Rooks addressed the foregoing amended Findings suggested by staff. In reference to her letter Ms. Rooks stated that the applicants' proposal does not meet the 60 foot frontage requirements on the two proposed corner parcels, and does not meet the 50 foot minimum width requirement on the interior parcel. The proposal also does not meet the 6,000 square foot corner lot requirement. Ms. Rooks stated that the creation of new undersized lots should fall within the guidelines of the General Plan dimensions. Ms. Rooks stated that the 20 foot front yard setback on Lot 3 as suggested by staff would be appropriate inasmuch as the parcels that front . onto Clay Street are required to maintain 20 foot front yard setbacks. Ms. Rooks stated that properties should be developed in conjunction with the General Plan so that the minimum requirements are met when the parcels ¢�y.. are developed, but not to create more small lots that are currently in existence and that cannot be modified. Ms. Rooks, explained the contents of a map that she had colored displaying the number of lot sizes that .exceed 6,125 square feet or more, and the number of lots that are 5,137 square feet or less. Mrs. Diane Springer, 3300 Clay Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. She described her concerns regarding the inadequate parking by referring to a map and submitting photographs that she had taken in the neighborhood. She addressed the 20 foot front yard setback requirement, that it would be setting a bad precedent to allow less square footage for the lots than is required in the General Plan, and that it is common knowledge that the area is in an R -2 District. Mrs. Gail Deemer, 2812 Cliff Drive, President of the Newport Heights Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Deemer addressed the foregoing Findings as amended by staff; density precedent; that because the area is in the older section -33- COMMISSIONERS 'sD 9 N d 0 ��y9CC ;O vy . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX of the City, the intensity of development needs to be watched; that said Association had a meeting with the developer and applicant; and that the homeowners requested said Association's support. Mr. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, property owner in the area, appeared before the Planning Commission.. He stated that he supports the project; he addressed the parking issue; and he referred to Condition No. 12 regarding the in -lieu park dedication fee. Discussion ensued between Mr. Soffer and staff regarding specific regulations, and in conclusion, Mr. Hewicker explained that the money received from the park dedication fee would be used to develop a park within the neighborhood so that the park would ultimately benefit the adjacent area. Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16th Street, member of SPON, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the application, and he referred to his letter to the Planning Commission dated June 8, 1988. Dr. Vandersloot addressed the density of the development; the General Plan density designation for the site; he referred to the letter from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Attorneys, dated June 7, 1988, addressed to the Planning Commission; that the applicant is attempting to develop 6 units on 2 lots in an R -2 District that would normally constitute development in an R -3 District; and that the. density would increase traffic and set a precedent in the area. Mr. Bob Brooks, 3233 Clay Street, owner and developer of the adjacent condominium, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated his concerns regarding the intensity and density of the property; parking; the inadequate public improvements; and the applicant`s request for a 10 foot setback. Mr. Robert Arnet, Architect for the project, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Arnet stated that the six unit development, unit per acre, is consistent with many of the lots to unit per acre ratio in the area; he described why there would be adequate street frontage for parking of automobiles; and that the development complies with the present Zoning Code requirements including setbacks. • Ms. Bate reappeared before the Planning Commission in rebuttal to the foregoing testimony. She stated that the adjacent property at 3233 Clay Street has no open -34- COMMISSIONERS Gay � r I9 - 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX space and she questioned that development's density and intensity; that the park fee money will be spent in the Newport Heights area; that there will be a Homeowner's Association within the proposed development; that she is proposing a two car garage for each unit whereas the Zoning Code requires only 1.5 parking spaces per unit and there would be adequate street parking; that many lots over 6,000 square feet have less than 60 foot widths; and considering the amount of open space that will be included in the development, the 15 foot front yard setbacks would be adequate. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 13577 subject to the Findings in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Winburn stated that the previous approvals by the Planning Commission on Cliff Drive consisted of lots that are more than standard lots in size, in width, and in square footage. • Chairman Pers6n stated that he would support the motion for the same reasons as Commissioner Winburn. He referred to the applications that the Planning Commission has denied because of sub- standard lots, and he emphasized that it is not the policy of the Planning Commission to encourage lot divisions to create sub- standard lots. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the motion. He referred to staff's modified Findings in Exhibit "A" regarding 6,000 square foot lots. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support the motion. He addressed the non - conforming lots in the Newport Heights area, and he stated that the Planning Commission should not encourage anyone to spend time and effort on planning a development, and then find that it would be denied because it has sub - standard lots. Ayes * * * * * * Motion was voted on to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. Absent * 13577, subject to the Findings in Exhibit "B ". MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: No action is necessary on environmental documents for projects that are • denied. -35- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y F �OAS�B June 9, 1988 BG BN BBi F y 9i. my oy C� �,io 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL CALL INDEX B. Tentative Mav of Tract No. 13577: Deny the tentative tract map subject to the following findings: FINDINGS 1. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the density of development inasmuch as the establishment of three lots for R -2 development .where two lots presently exist can not be accomplished without requesting exceptions to the lot design standards as established by the Zoning Code and the Subdivision Code. 3. That the granting of the requested exceptions are not compatible with the objectives of the regulations governing light, air and the public. health, safety, convenience, and general welfare. • 4. That the granting of the requested exceptions, to the Subdivision Code will be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the property is located. Amendment No. 664 (Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the k664 Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to establish within the 0 -S District, two classifications of open space Approved which will distinguish between active and passive recreational areas; and the acceptance of an environmental document. Said amendment also establishes the permitted uses within each open space classification. . INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Dmohowski appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company.:. Mr. Dmohowski stated that the proposed amendment has • deleted the provision that where the private property is designated as open space, the landowner's agreement is required to place said land in the Open Space District. He requested that the existing language of the Municipal -36- COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 RCL CALL INDEX Code be retained, in view of court decisions regarding inverse condemnation, and that it may benefit property owners and the City to have the relationship clarified. James Hewicker, Planning Director, clarified The Irvine Company's position that if the City is to initiate Open Space zoning on privately owned property that it can only be done by the initiation of a zone change with the property owner's consent. Mr. Hewicker stated that it is staff's position that it is possible that the City could initiate a zone change to Open Space on privately owned property wherein the property owner may have an objection, in which case under the current procedures there would not be a public hearing. He stated that the amendment has been written so that if the property owner objected, there would still be a public hearing, but by law the property owner would be left with an economic value on the property. ' The public hearing was closed at this time. n + Motion was made and voted on to approve Amendment No. x • * * * 664, and to accept the environmental document subject to sent * the Findings in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K -3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. B. Amendment No. 664: Approve Amendment No. 664 amending Title 20 of the Municipal Code establishing within the Open Space District two classifications of open space which ..will distinguish between active and passive recreational areas and establish the permitted uses within these two classifications, and recommend to the City Council approval of this amendment. -37- COMMISSIONERS Z�G9y9�NOy1CC�o AM 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 ROL CALL INDEX Amendment No. 665 (Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the A665 Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to establish a "Governmental, Educational, and Institutional ontinued Facilities" Zoning District; and the acceptance of an o 6 -23 -88 environmental document. Said amendment also establishes permitted uses within the district as well as provisions for permitted building heights, building floor area, off - street parking and setback requirements. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to Ayes * * * * * * the June 23, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. Amendment No. 666 (Public Hearing) item No.9 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of. the A666 • Municipal Code pertaining to the distribution of public notices for proposed amendments to Title 20 of the' ontinued Municipal Code; and the acceptance of an environmental document. to 6 -23 -88 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to . Ayes * * * * * * the June 23, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Absent * CARRIED. DISCUSSION ITEM: iscussion Request of The Irvine Company to appeal staff's Item interpretation of the calculation of floor area limits Dl for the proposed Fashion Island Food Court Mr. David Dmohowski appeared before the Planning. pod Court Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company. Mr. Dmohowski stated that because the Health Department requires that the food area be protected, that an area within the proposed Food Court had to be enclosed. He • explained that The Irvine Company believes that the enclosed area of approximately 5,000 square feet should not be considered in the total gross floor square footage inasmuch as the floor area will function as a -38- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES June 9, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX pedestrian and circulation area connecting the second level of Fashion Island with the theater complex. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the only difference is that a glass wall is being moved out from the proposed food counters, and by so doing, it encloses a larger area than had been contemplated, and by definition under the P -C regulations, the incidental seating has to be outdoors and not indoors. He stated that staff believes that they did not have the flexibility to determine if the enclosed area should be included in the gross floor square footage. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and Mr. Dmohowski. The Planning Commission expressed opinions that the glass enclosed area would be used for seating and a public area, but they also stated concerns that the public would feel that the glass enclosed area would be specifically for food purposes. Motion ot Motion was made and voted on to sustain the request of * * * * * The Irvine Company. MOTION CARRIED. D2 200 West Coast Highway on the northwesterly corner of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway, below Cliff Haven it and opposite Bayshores Community Associations James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that under a Use Permit, an automobile rental facility or a recreational vehicle lot would be permitted on the subject property. He requested the Planning Commission determine if the recreational vehicle facility may assume a use permit that had been previously approved for an automobile rental and sales facility. The Planning Commission discussed the request. Their concerns consisted of recreational vehicles entering from Dover Drive into the site and departing on West Coast Highway; and that said vehicles would be cleaned on the premises. Mr. Roy Johns appeared before the Planning Commission to state that the facility would only sell and not rent • recreational vehicles. -39- COMMISSIONERS 0 Y• to�04N � �y9 oy Cr clr-o � 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES June 9, 1988 R CALL INDEX Motion * Motion was made and voted on to require an amendment to Ayes * * * * * the Use Permit requesting the sale of Recreational Absent * Vehicles on the site. MOTION CARRIED. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Motion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Chairman Pers6n Business Ayes. * * * * * i from the June 23, 1988, and July 7, 1988, Planning erson Absent Commission meetings. MOTION CARRIED. Excused ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 p.m. Adjournment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -40-