Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/1982X1XI *I Commissioner Allen was absent. x x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES . Minutes of May 6, 1982 Commissioner Beek referred to Page 3, Paragraph No. 4 of the May 6, 1982, Planning Commission Minutes and suggested that his statement be clarified to reflect that the project is an improvement over the prior proposal. MOtion X Motion was made for approval of the Minutes of May 6, All Ayes X X X X X X * 1982, as revised, which MOTION CARRIED. Minutes of May 20, 1982 Commissioner Beek referred to Page 9, Paragraph No. 6 of the May 20, 1982, Planning Commission Minutes and suggested that his question. be clarified to ask if the applicant would be agreeable in providing a clear, 20 -foot wide strip down the sidewalk in front of the project, which has no landscaping, trees, benches, tables, chairs or other obstructions. Motiones I XI XI XI X IX IX I* I Motion ,was made for approval of the Minutes of May 20, Ali y 1982, as revised, which MOTION CARRIED. • IIIIIIII :' MINUTES INDEX REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING "MISSIONW PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7 :30 p.m. x DATE: June 10, 1982 � � c � m m m F % City of Newport Beach X1XI *I Commissioner Allen was absent. x x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES . Minutes of May 6, 1982 Commissioner Beek referred to Page 3, Paragraph No. 4 of the May 6, 1982, Planning Commission Minutes and suggested that his statement be clarified to reflect that the project is an improvement over the prior proposal. MOtion X Motion was made for approval of the Minutes of May 6, All Ayes X X X X X X * 1982, as revised, which MOTION CARRIED. Minutes of May 20, 1982 Commissioner Beek referred to Page 9, Paragraph No. 6 of the May 20, 1982, Planning Commission Minutes and suggested that his question. be clarified to ask if the applicant would be agreeable in providing a clear, 20 -foot wide strip down the sidewalk in front of the project, which has no landscaping, trees, benches, tables, chairs or other obstructions. Motiones I XI XI XI X IX IX I* I Motion ,was made for approval of the Minutes of May 20, Ali y 1982, as revised, which MOTION CARRIED. • IIIIIIII :' MINUTES INDEX �x � r c w � m P m 7C mm N > w June 10, 1982 MINUTES of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Motion All Ayes X • • X Staff recommended that Item No. 15 - Use Permit No. 1992, relating to electronic games of skill be continued, so as to give the City Council adequate time to consider the provisions of the proposed Electronic Video Game Machines Ordinance. Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 1992 to the Planning Commission Meeting of July 22, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. - x t Items No. 1,2,3 Traffic Study (Public Hearing) and 4 Request to consider a traffic study in conjunction with: the development of a 48,603 sq.ft.± retail commercial and office building. TRAFFIC AND I STUDY Use Permit No. 2080 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a retail USE PERM] commercial /office building and related parking areas, N0. 2080 on property located in the C -1 District in the Central Balboa Specific Plan Area, where a Specific Plan has not been adopted, and which exceeds 5,000 sq.ft. of floor area. The proposed building also exceeds the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also includes a VARIANCE modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use N0. 1092 of compact car parking spaces and other parking spaces which are not independently accessible. AND Variance No. 1092 (Public Hearing) RESUB- DIVISI Request to permit the construction of a "space frame" N0. 72 grill work above the third story of a proposed retail commercial /office building, and a ferris wheel, both exceeding the height limit of 35 feet. -2- COMMISSIONERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES C r c m m x w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX knb Resubdivision No. 724 (Public Hearing) ALL Request to establish one building site for retail APPROVED commercial and office development and eliminate C DI- interior property lines where eight parcels presently TIONALLY exist. LOCATION: Lots 1 through 7, Block B, Bayside Tract and portions of Section 35, Township G South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino 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 APPLICANT: J.B.S. Development, Claremont OWNER: - Fun Zone Development Co., Newport Beach TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Weston Pringle & Associates, Fullerton ENGINEER: Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren & Short, Santa Ana Agenda Items No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, suggested the following changes to Exhibit "A" of the staff report: Resubdivision No. 724 - Condition of Approval No. 9, to read as follows, "That a corner cutoff, acceptable to the Public Works Department, at the corner of Palm Street and East Bay Avenue be dedicated to the public for pedestrian purposes." -3- '1A/VUJ� June 10, 1982 � m m m City of Newport Beach Resubdivision No. 724 - Condition of Approval No. 16, to read as follows, "That the existing curb returns at the corner of East Bay Avenue and Palm Street be reconstructed with an access ramp. This may require the relocation of the existing palm tree at the corner of East Bay Avenue and Palm Street." Resubdivision No. 724 - Condition of Approval No. 21, to be deleted. Use Permit No. 2080 - An additional Finding of Approval be added as follows: "The approval of Use Permit No. 2080 with the use of a portion of a public street for valet loading is a special circumstance and does not indicate that this concept will be approved for future or past developments." I ( I I I I I The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Ms. Coralee Gapastione, of Urban Strategy, representing the project applicant, appeared before the • Commission. Ms. Gapastione stated that they are in concurrence will all of the conditions of approval as suggested, with the exception of Condition No. 91 on Use Permit No. 2080, relating to the nighttime lighting. She stated that the applicant has agreed to reduce the bulb size and dim the lighting of the proposed project. She presented an artists rendering of the proposed project at night, which depicted the proposed lighting in relationship to the Pavilion lighting. She stated that the outlining of the proposed structure would be attractive and would not detract from the Pavilion. In response to a question posed by Commissioner King, Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that the basic design of the parking structure precludes using areas within it, for pick -up and drop - off. Mr. Don Webb stated that the steep ramps would create a dangerous situation for pick -up and drop -off areas. Commissioner King asked if the total width from the bulkhead to the proposed structure will allow for a clear, 20 foot wide strip and still permit the ferris wheel installation. Mr. Talarico stated that as the • project is presently designed, it would not allow for a -4- MINUTES INDEX r c o' W c> n m y D -W�W_m June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Icon Amendment Ayes Noes X X Absent Amendment U X P 20 foot clear strip. He stated that the closest point would be approximately 19 feet. Ms. Gapastione stated that they would like to work with the staff on this point and remain flexible on the placement and location of the landscaping, benches.and tables. Mr. Talarico stated that the landscaping, benches and tables can be designed to be within a reasonable distance and to allow for pedestrian movement. Planning Director Hewicker could be added which would the improvement of the pec approved and reviewed by Public Works Department, Recreation Department. stated that a condition require that the plan for estrian easement shall be the Planning Department, and Parks, Beaches and The Planning Commission then took the following: actions: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Motion was made to approve the Environmental Impact Report, subject to the Findings of the,Exhibit "A ". Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. He referred to Page 46 of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR),. and stated that the project intensity should be stated as 2.1 Floor Area Ratio, rather than 1.4 Floor Area Ratio. The EIR is counting public walkway easement as part of the "buildable area" even though it can not be built upon. This is based on the technicality that the City's definition of buildable area neglected to exclude easements, but relied entirely upon setback lines. No setback line has been established along the edge of the public easement because none is necessary; the easement cannot be built upon. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not accept this as an amendment to his motion. Amendment to the motion was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. He stated that the EIR should give decision - makers an objective Statement of Facts on which to base their decision. But, this EIR reads as if it had been prepared by the developer as a means of enhancing his profit potential, rather than by the City as a means.of -5- � r c m � m c > n D Y 3 j !p S VI 7 June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES ■ ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX Ayes Noes Absent Amendment Ayes: Noes Absent XIXIAXI IX protecting the public interest. It attempts to nullify comments which are adverse to the project, but never argues with comments favorable to the project. The City Environmental Quality Advisory ' Committee unanimously found that it should be rejected as inadequate. 'Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not accept this as an amendment to his motion. Amendment to the motion was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. He stated that the EIR does not address the mandate of the General Plan for a specific area plan for this area. The most nearly comparable area for which a specific plan has been adopted is Mariner's Mile. Normal intensities there were established as Floor Area Ratios of 0.5 ranging up to 1.0 in special circumstances. This project has a Floor Area Ratio of 2.1, which renders it high intensity by. the best comparable standards. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Talarico stated that the Draft EIR does address the fact that a specific area plan is designated for the area, but has not been adopted as yet. He further stated the EIR addresses the Commission's priority for the preparation of the specific area plan and the boundaries of the specific area plan. He stated that the existing development of the area is indicated in the Draft EIR, as well as the maximum development intensities which could occur in the area under this zoning, including. the Cannery Village area. He stated that the Draft EIR very adequately addresses the fact that this is an area for a future specific area plan. Planning Director Hewicker stated that a use permit for the proposed project is required because there is no specific area plan prepared for the area and the project exceeds 5,000 square feet. X Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not accept X X X X X Commissioner Beek's amendment to his motion. Amendment * by Commissioner Beek was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. V%1VMJJP,ANLr1 June 10, 1982 X m m F w City of Newport Beach MINUTES ■ ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Amendment Ayes Noes Absent Amendment r1 U Ayes. Noes Absent 11 X Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. He stated that the EIR wrongly downplays the precedent setting effect of this project. Since no specific area plan has been adopted, this project will be used as a standard to justify other high intensity projects, just as this EIR .uses existing excessively high structures to justify this project. The Planning Commission has received testimony that surrounding property owners are watching this project with interest as it provides direction for the development of their own properties. X Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not accept X X this as an amendment to his motion. Amendment was now * voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. He stated that the first response to comment, Page 1 of Responses, is misleading. According to the data on Pages 24 and 26 of the EIR, the total commercial square feet in Balboa (areas D -1, D -2, D -3 and D -4) could increase 481% from 132,079 to 767,620 square feet. Commissioner King stated that such an increase would be possible with the present zoning, irrespective of the proposed project. Mr. Talarico concurred. Commissioner Balalis stated that the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan is located completely within the D -3 area. Mr. Talarico stated that the response to comment as referred to by . Commissioner Beek, points out that there is substantial growth and development potential on the Balboa Peninsula. He further stated that a substantial amount of the growth lies outside of the Central Balboa area. Commissioner Beek stated that the precedent setting nature of this project will have an affect on the entire Balboa Peninsula area. Commissioner Balalis stated that the Draft EIR satisfactorily addresses this issue. X I I X1 I I Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not accept X IX X Commissioner Beek's amendment to his motion. Amendment * by Commissioner Beek was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. -7- Amendment Ayes Noes Absent e' z � r c m m m m D 3 3 n x m P XI IX June 10, 1982 MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. He stated that Page 28 of the EIR ignores the housing problem which currently exists in Newport Beach, and would be made worse by the project's addition of 125 employees. The response on Page 2 of the Responses admits that these employees will not live in Newport Beach, but does not address the problems of traffic congestion, air pollution, or energy consumption that will be made worse by these employees commuting to remote housing locations. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would, not accept this as an amendment to his motion. Amendment to the motion was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. Amendment Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. He stated that the EIR should compare the project with reasonable alternatives. On Page 103, the EIR admits that, "Other design options obviously exist. Among these are one -story or two -story designs which would • reduce the project impacts proportionately in relation to the reduction of square footage, assuming a similar balance of uses." Such a normal intensity project is very reasonable, consistent with surrounding development and with the most comparable adopted Specific Area Plan (Mariner's Mile). But no data on such an alternative is given in the EIR,. and no comparison with the proposed project is given. Commissioner Balalis accepted the amendment to his motion. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if this particular amendment is accepted by the Commission, it will pose a problem in terms of approving the environmental document for the project. Commissioner Balalis stated that the proposed amendment would not require the environmental document to be revised to include the alternative, but that the alternative itself should be looked at and addressed. Mr. Burnham stated that The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of alternatives of the project. • He stated that the discussion of the alternatives is a significant portion of an environmental document. -8- MINUTES June 10, 1982 M 7c m m x w City of Newport Beach INDEX Ayes Noes Absent Gies Noes Absent In response to a question posed, by Commissioner King, Mr. Burnham stated that alternatives considered by the applicant, prior to the preparation of the environmental document, are not relevant to the decision of the Commission. Commissioner King stated that full documentation and the rewriting of an EIR for a whole list of alternatives should not be required of a applicant. Commissioner Balalis concurred and stated that the Draft EIR is not inadequate even though it did not discuss the alternatives in detail. X) I The Planning Commission now voted to delete the amendment accepted by Commissioner Balalis, which * - AMENDMENT WAS DELETED. Original Motion by Commissioner Balalis for the approval of the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT subject to the Findings of Exhibit "A" was now voted. on as * follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS:- 1. That the Environmental Impact Report 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. Impact Report has been considered in the decision of this portion of the project. 3. The City finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential . environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. • IIIIIIII -9_ 3 � m m D c J 6;K • • MINUTES June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach INDEX 4. The City finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been avoided or mitigated by the imposition of conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 2080 and Resubdivision No. 724 and Variance No. 1092. 5. The City.finds that potential mitigation measures or project alternative not incorporated into the project were rejected as. infeasible, based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final. EIR. - 6. The City finds that the unavoidable significant impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance have been substantially reduced in. their impacts by the imposition of conditions on the approved General Plan Amendment and the imposition of Conditions of Approval. In making its decision on the project, the City has given greater weight to the adverse environmental impacts. The City finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 7. The City finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project, even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate. alternative in the preparation of the Draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. -10- June 10, 1982 X m m M w City of Newport Beach c T a m n S. The City finds that the project should be approved and that any alternative to this proposed action should not be approved for the project based on the information contained in the Final EIR, the data contained in the Statement of Facts and for the reasons stated in the public record and those contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 9. The City finds that a good faith effort has been made to seek out the incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR as indicated in the public record on the project, including the Final EIR. 10. The City finds and determines that the Final Environmental Impact Report consists of the following documents: a) Draft EIR . b) Planning Commission Minutes c) Planning Commission Staff Report (with attachments) d) Comments and responses received by the City related to the project not contained in "a" through "c" above and received prior to final action on this project. 11. The City finds that all of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 West Newport Blvd., P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach CA, 92663 -3884, (714) 640 -2197. STATEMENT.OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Motion Motion was made for 'approval of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, subject to the Findings of Exhibit "A ". Amendment 0 it Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. He referred to the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Attachment No. 24, and stated that Item No. 1 should be deleted. He stated that the argument -11- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSONERSI �x �r c m � � m F. > June lo, lgsz MINUTES City, of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX that the project will supplant a deteriorated use is irrelevant and non sequitur for comparing this high intensity project against an alternative normal intensity project would would equally supplant the deteriorated use. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not accept this as an amendment to his motion because he stated that Item No. 1 of the Statement of Ayes X Overriding Considerations is a strong argument for the Noes X X X X X support of this project. Amendment was now voted on; Absent * which AMENDMENT FAILED. Amendment X Amendment to.the motion was made by Commissioner Beek., He referred to the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Attachment No. 24, and stated that Item 140. 4 should be deleted. He stated that the argument that the project provides for dedication of an easement is misleading and fallacious, because the sidewalk is an existing prescriptive easement and the easement between the sidewalk and the bulkhead was granted to the public in return for the conversion of the former • public swimming beach into a marina for the profit of the landowner. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the .proposed project provides for dedication of an "expanded" public access easement along Edgewater Place by approximately 23 feet. Mr. Burnham referred to Item No. 4 and stated that the existing public access easement consists of two components: 1) the 12 foot. easement which has been granted by deed to the City, and 2) prescriptive rights the public may have acquired by virtue of continuous use He stated that Item No. 4 eliminates the possibility of a controversy' over the public's right to the existing sidewalk. Mr. Burnham suggested the following wording for Item No. 4 in the Statement. of Overriding Considerations: "The proposed project provides for dedication of a, public access easement and eliminates the necessity of .litigating a question of prescriptive rights and ensures that the easement will be from ground to sky." is -12- n x c n 00 a June 10, 1982 MINUTES , of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not accept Ayes Commissioner Beek's amendment to his motion. Amendment Noes X X X X by.Commissioner Beek was now voted on, which AMENDMENT Absent FAILED. Amendment X Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. He referred to the Statement of overriding Consideration, Attachment No. 24, and stated that Item No. 6 should be deleted. He stated that the argument' that significant traffic improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the project is wrong. The improvement of the Balboa /Superior /Coast Highway intersection will take place regardless of the project. The project will make traffic in Central Balboa Ayes X considerably worse. Commissioner Balalis stated that Noes X X X he would not accept this as an amendment to his motion. Absent Amendment was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. dment X Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. He referred to the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Attachment No. 24, and stated that Item Nos. 9, 10, and 12 be deleted. He stated that the arguments that project revenues will exceed current revenues, that the project represents recycling of urban land, and that the project establishes a high standard of design, are irrelevant and non sequitur for comparing this high intensity project against an alternative, normal intensity project. Commissioner Balalis stated that Item Nos. 9, 10 and 12 of the Ayes Statement of Overriding Considerations are strong Noes X X X X arguments for the support of this project. Amendment Absent * was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. Amendment Amendment to the motion was 'made by Commissioner Beek. He referred to the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Attachment No. 24, and stated that Item No. 11 be deleted. He stated that the findings of consistency and compatibility are .wrong. The project is not consistent with the most comparable Specific Area Plan, namely the Mariner's Mile Plan. It represents a great increase of intensity over any neighboring use. Commissioner Balalis stated that he • I ( I I J I I I would not accept this as an amendment to his motion -13- Ayes Noes Absent Ayes Noes Absent • Motion Amendment • June 10, 1982 � r c m � m City of Newport Beach JJ I I because the proposed plans are in compliance with the recently inacted program of the Local Coastal Plan and X X X visitor related facilities in the Central Balboa area. Amendment was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. MINUTES Commissioner Balalis stated that he would amend his original motion to include the wording as suggested. by Mr. Burnham for Item No. 4 of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, "The proposed project provides for dedication of a public access easement and eliminates the necessity of litigating a question of prescriptive rights and ensures that the easement will be from ground to sky." Original Motion for approval X X X - X of the STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, As X amended, was now voted on as follows, which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED: FINDINQSe 1. The City finds that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been.prepared and is labeled as Attachment No. 24. (See above paragraph for the change of wording for Item No. 4 of the Statement of Overriding Considerations). 2. The City finds that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. STATEMENT OF FACTS Motion Was made for approval of the Statement of Facts, subject to the Findings of Exhibit "A ". Amendment was made by Commissioner Beek. He referred to the CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts, Attachment No. 23, Page 2, Item No. 2, and stated that the state- ment that the project alternatives are economically unfeasible, is not supported by any evidence in the EIR or presented to the Commission, and is contradicted by the Laguna Federal Savings and Loan project which is -14- INDEX r c m � CO Ayes Noes Absent 1XI i I TH. Amendment June lo, 1982 MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX directly across the street, on a parcel about half as large as the subject parcel, and is clearly feasible. Commissioner _Balalis stated that he would not accept this as an amendment to his motion because the economic conditions under which Laguna Federal Savings and Loan purchased said property several years ago is totally different from that of this project. Amendment was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. X Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. He referred to the CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts, Attachment No. 23, Page 2, Item No. 1, and stated that the finding that project alternatives would cause loss of an existing public easement is not supported by any evidence in the EIR or presented to the Commission, and is in fact, false as the public:' easement is public property and would not be lost in a development of normal intensity. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Burnham stated that he believes that the City would prevail if the question of prescriptive rights were to be litigated. He stated that the public access easement would be for the public's right to pass over the property. Commissioner Beek stated that the public access easement would not be lost if a different project were to be built. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would amend his motion to delete the last phrase in the CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts, Page 2, Item No. 1, "and could cause the loss of a public access easement currently incorporated in the proposed project." Commissioner Withdrawn X Beek stated that he would withdraw his amendment to the motion. Amendment X Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. He referred to the CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts., Attachment No. 23, Page 2, Item No. 3, and stated that the finding that the project is a redevelopment of a deteriorated use is irrelevant and non sequitur to comparing this project at high • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 intensity with an alternative at normal intensity. -15- June 10, 1982 n x � r c m � m W x u City of Newport Beach Ayes X Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not accept Noes X X X X X this as an amendment to his motion. Amendment was now Absent voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. Amendment X Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Beek. Be referred to the CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts, Attachment No. 23, Pages 3, 5 and 6, and stated that references to the Statement of Overriding Considerations are irrelevant when the Statement itself is inadequate due to errors and omissions. Commissioner Balalis stated that he can not accept this Ayes III X as an amendment to the motion, because the Statement of Noes X X X X X Overriding Considerations has already been approved. Absent Amendment was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would amend his original motion to delete the phrase "and could cause the loss of a public access easement currently incorporated in the proposed project" from the CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts, Attachment No. 23, Ayes X X X X X Page 2, Item No. 1. Original Motion for approval of Noes -X- the STATEMENT OF FACTS, as amended, was now voted on as Absent follows, which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. The City finds that a Statement of Facts has been prepared and is labeled as Attachment No. 23. 2. The City makes the findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR together with the findings that. each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. 3. The City finds that all significant effects of the project are set forth in the Statement of Facts. • 11111111 -16- MINUTES 110 C June 10, 1982 W m y City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX The Planning Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9 :00 p.m. TRAFFIC STUDY Ms. Judy Cooper, Chairman of the Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee (CEQAC), appeared before the Commission. Ms. Cooper referred to their letter of May 10, 1982, and stated that the EIR does not address the potential traffic impact to Balboa Island. She stated that people will park their cars on Balboa Island and ride the ferry across on foot. She further expressed their concern with the loss of seven metered public parking spaces adjacent to the project. • Mr. Talarico stated that Condition No. 85 of Use Permit No. 2080 requires the applicant to compensate the City for the loss,of revenues and.for each on- street parking space lost on East Bay Avenue. Mr. Talarico stated that the traffic analysis conducted for the proposed project concluded that no significant increase in ferry traffic would occur if the project were implemented, as noted in the Draft EIR, Page 64. He stated that the only impact on ferry operations is expected to occur on the Peninsula, where circulation conflicts may occur with lines awaiting the ferry adjacent to the project site. Mr. Wes Pringle, Traffic Consultant for the Draft EIR, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Pringle stated that the traffic analysis did not assume that vehicle traffic would be generated from the ferry operation. He stated that they did not feel that people would be utilizing Balboa island to park their cars because parking is not readily available on Balboa Island. Mr. Talarico stated that the certified Final EIR will incorporate the Draft EIR, Responses and Comments,. Planning Commission testimony and all other items which have been addressed and presented. -17- COMMISSIONERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES m � m City of Newport Beach c a n m m ROLLCALLI 111 11 1 1 INDEX Motion Ayes Abstain ON ent • Mr. Pringle stated that it is important to understand that the traffic to the proposed project will not be all new traffic, but will also consist of existing traffic in the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Talarico stated that Condition No. 109 of Use Permit No. 2080 requires the applicant to deposit a sum of $7,000.00 to study the Central Balboa Area Circulation System. Commissioner Beek stated that due to a possible conflict of interest relating. to the ferry operation, he would be abstaining from a vote on the Traffic Study. 1 JJ I Motion was made for approval of the Traffic Study, X X subject to the Findings and Conditions of Exhibit ^A ", X which MOTION CARRIED as follows: FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -l. 2. 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 the critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the Traffic Studies suggest several circulation system improvements which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at all critical intersections. -18- COMMISSIONERS June lD, 1962 MINUTES � r c m � m m x w City of Newport Beach ROLLCALL111 I III INDEX 4. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service' on any "major ", "primary- modified" or ".primary" street. CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to the Circulation System Improvements for the intersection of Superior Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway shown in the Traffic Study, Figure 2. 2. The Circulation System Improvement described in Condition 1 above shall have been made (unless • I I I subsequent project approvals require modification thereto). The Circulation System Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. USE PERMIT NO. 2080 In response to .a question posed by Commissioner King, Mr. Talarico referred to Condition No. 69 of Use Permit No. 2080, which provides for an amendment to the use permit to consider all on -site restaurant facilities at one time. Mr. Talarico stated that staff and the applicant are both agreeable to this condition. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2080, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Exhibit "A ", with the additional Finding No. 8 as recommended by the Public Works Department, "The approval of Use Permit No. 2080 with the use of a portion of a public street for valet loading is a special circumstance and does not indicate that this concept will be approved for • -19- June 10, 1982 MINUTES m � m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX future or past developments." And, Condition No. 91 to be revised to permit the nighttime lighting of the project with smaller and dimmer bulbs than the Pavilion, which will allow the Pavilion to be.the more prominent and historical visual display in the area. Said lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning Director. Amendment X Amendment was made to the motion by Chairman Ayes X X McLaughlin. She stated that Condition No. 91 as Noes X X Y X written in Exhibit "A" should remain. Commissioner Absent * King stated that he would not accept this as an amendment to his motion. Amendment to the motion was now voted on, which AMENDMENT FAILED. Commissioner King continued with his motion and referred to Condition No. 100 and stated that this should be clarified to reflect "That during the, • construction period, a minimum 12 foot wide surface pedestrian way be maintained. . Commissioner Beek stated that inasmuch as there is only 19 feet of clearance between the building and the ferris wheel fence, he suggested an additional condition for a clear, 18 -foot wide strip down the sidewalk in front of the project, which has no landscaping, trees, benches, tables, chairs.or other obstructions, rather than a 20 -foot wide strip. Commissioner King stated that he would prefer a 15 -foot wide strip which would allow for street trees and some greenery. Mr. Talarico stated that a,15 -foot wide strip would be acceptable. Commissioner King stated that he would not like a straight strip because people on bicycles and rollerskates would essentially prohibit the public from using the easement. He stated that a meandering strip would eliminate this problem. Commissioner King continued with his motion and suggested.an additional condition which would provide that a minimum 15 -foot clear area be maintained within the easement area that will exist from the proposed building line to the bulkhead line. The exact location -20- n LJ Ayes Noes Absent • �x � r c . m W D xlxlxix I Ix June 10, 1982 MINUTES of Newwrt Beach and design of said area shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department, Public Works Department and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. Mr. Talarico suggested that Condition No. 19 of Resubdivision No. 724 be added as a condition to the use permit approval, which relates to the 23 foot wide surface easement. Commissioner King stated that this would be acceptable. Commissioner King restated his motion for approval of USE PERMIT NO. 2080, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Exhibit "A" as follows, with the following changes: Additional Finding No. 8 as recommended by the Public Works Department; Condition No. 91 be revised to permit the nighttime lighting of the project with smaller and dimmer bulbs than the Pavilion. Said lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning Director; Condition No. 100 be revised to reflect "That during the construction period, a minimum 12 foot wide surface pedestrian way be maintained. . "; Additional Condition No. 110 that would provide that a minimum 15 -foot clear area be maintained within the easement area that will exist from the proposed building line to the bulkhead line. The exact location and design of said area shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department, Public Works Department and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department; That Condition No. 19 of the Resubdivision No. 724 be added as an additional condition which relates to the 23 foot wide surface easement. Commissioner King's motion for approval of USE PERMIT NO. 2080 was now voted on as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: 131010trTex^G 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan; the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program as conditionally certified by the Coastal Commission and accepted by the City Council; and is compatible with surrounding land uses. -21- INDEX rL r c c a m m D June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach 2. The proposed use of not independently accessible and compact car spaces 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 is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 2080 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. • 4. The increased building height will .result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 5. 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 could be provided with in the basic height limit. 6. The increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. 8. The approval of Use Permit No. 2080 with the use of a portion of a public street for valet loading is a special circumstance and does not indicate that this concept will be approved for future or past developments. IIIIIIII -22- MINUTES INDEX � r c c n s D M] June 10, 1982 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That all development conformance with the plans, elevations and below. shall be in substantial approved plot plan, floor sections except as noted 2. That all applicable conditions of Resubdivision No. 724 shall be fulfilled. 3. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 4. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. • 5. The grading permit shall include, a description of haul routes access points to. the site and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations on the public streets system. The routes and cleaning program shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 6. 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 will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region.- 7. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist based upon the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. This shall .establish parameter of design for the proposed structure and also provide recommendations for grading. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. • 11111111 -23- COMMISSIONERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES � r c m � m x w City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III III INDEX B. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by.the Grading Engineer. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide documentation of existing structural conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project and the estimated extent and impact of subsidence on surrounding structures, utilities and other improvements, to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety, Public Works and Planning Departments of the City of Newport Beach. 10. During excavation and throughout dewatering of the project, site, the applicant shall monitor the extent of subsidence and its associated impacts through placement of appropriate testing devices under the supervision and surveillance of a qualified soils engineer. The City shall be kept • informed in a manner approved by the Building Department & Public Works Department regarding any structural impacts on adjacent properties and other improvements and if necessary, construction processes shall be modified to eliminate such impacts and the applicant shall repair any improvements damaged by subsidence. 11. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit shall be obtained establishing discharge requirements for water extracted during dewatering processes. 12. Suspended solids (sand) shall be separated from extracted water to comply with specified standards prior to disposal. Sand disposal shall be at a location and by a method approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Newport Beach. 13. Provision shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) in groundwater by Chlorination in order to comply with standards specified by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to disposal into Newport Bay and to control odors emanating from dewatering process. -24- June 10, 1982 r c m m City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX 1 • • 14. Unreacted chlorine resulting H 2 S shall be neutralized, methods approved by the Santa Quality Control Board prior to into Newport Bay. from treatment of as necessary, by Ana Regional Water disposal. of water 15. Drainage facilities and architectural features shall be designed so as to prevent rainwater and storm runoff from entering the subterranean garage structure subject to approval by.the Planning and Building Departments of the City of Newport Beach. 16. A system of garage floor slab drainage shall be designed to keep subterranean floors slabs dry and to remove oil and grease from collected wastewater prior to disposal into public drains and /or Newport Bay. This system shall meeting the specifications of the City of Newport Beach and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 17. All onsite drainage shall be approved by the Building Department. 18. The pouring of the basement slab shall be scheduled so as to encompass only two nighttime periods in manner approved by the Building Department. 19. Electric pump motors shall be required for dewatering equipment to reduce potential noise levels and approved by the Building Department. 20. Noise producing equipment shall be enclosed by barriers or baffled in a manner established by a qualified acoustical engineer to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Departments. 21. Prior to issuance of building and/or grading /demolition permits, the Planning Department shall approve a signing construction program for the proposed project. 22. An Army Corps of Engineers permit and a Harbor permit shall be obtained prior to any alteration of bulkheads. -25- ROLL • • "ANSSIONERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES m m W m City of Newport Beach INDEX 23. Should barges be utilized for construction, a Harbor permit shall be obtained. 24. Demolition and construction will not be commenced until after September 6, 1982, to avoid peak, seasonal traffic. 25. In order to ascertain periods of greatest potential impact from noise, vibration, and congestion, the project applicant shall submit a detailed construction scheduled to the City of Newport Beach, outlining the time frame for each phase of construction prior to or at the time of application for building permits. The construction schedule shall be approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 26. In order to accelerate the process of placing sheet piles, thereby reducing the time span of potential noise and vibration impacts, the use of more than one crew and pile driver shall be considered depending on the proposed construction schedule, at the discretion of the City. 27. Baffles or enclosures around noise - producing equipment shall be required. 28. Excavations shall be shored by sheet piling placed by a method approved by the City of Newport Beach. 29. A system of well points shall be utilized to dewater the site for construction purposes. Additional well points shall be placed in the center of the excavation to prevent a "quick" condition from development during dewatering and excavation processes. 30. Sheet pilings shall be driven in a manner approved by the City of Newport Beach so as not to interfere with the use of existing public rights -of -way on Palm Street, East Bay Avenue, and Washington Street. 31. The relocation of public utilities shall be coordinated with and approved by local utility companies and public agencies as appropriate. -26- June lo, 1982 MINUTES INDEX 32. A system of barriers and overhead protection shall be required during demolition processes in order to prevent debris from falling into adjacent streets and Newport Bay. 33. During any closure of adjoining streets which may be required during the proposed construction phases, alternative pedestrian circulation shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Planning and Public Works Departments. 34. In order to allow continuous pouring of the proposed basement slab, the applicant shall obtain from the Director of Building & Safety a temporary waiver of noise abatement regulations (Chapter 10.28 - Newport Beach Municipal Code) restricting: construction hours. 35. All activities that require full or partial • street closures, parking prohibition, heavy truck traffic, large or heavy loads or similar activities shall be approved by the Police Department and City.Traffic Engineer. 36. Trucks shall utilize Washington Street and Palm Street for ingress and egress. 37. Closure of Palm Street shall be prohibited at any time. 38. The building contractor shall examine existing streets to ensure. that trucks assigned to the project can negotiate required turns and demonstrate such to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Building Departments. 39. If barges are utilized for sand hauling operations or placement of dewatering pumps, provisions shall be made to provide replacement on a one - for -one basis of any boat slips displaced during the period of displacement in a manner approved by the Planning Department. • 11111111 -27 � r c W n City of Newport Beach INDEX 32. A system of barriers and overhead protection shall be required during demolition processes in order to prevent debris from falling into adjacent streets and Newport Bay. 33. During any closure of adjoining streets which may be required during the proposed construction phases, alternative pedestrian circulation shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Planning and Public Works Departments. 34. In order to allow continuous pouring of the proposed basement slab, the applicant shall obtain from the Director of Building & Safety a temporary waiver of noise abatement regulations (Chapter 10.28 - Newport Beach Municipal Code) restricting: construction hours. 35. All activities that require full or partial • street closures, parking prohibition, heavy truck traffic, large or heavy loads or similar activities shall be approved by the Police Department and City.Traffic Engineer. 36. Trucks shall utilize Washington Street and Palm Street for ingress and egress. 37. Closure of Palm Street shall be prohibited at any time. 38. The building contractor shall examine existing streets to ensure. that trucks assigned to the project can negotiate required turns and demonstrate such to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Building Departments. 39. If barges are utilized for sand hauling operations or placement of dewatering pumps, provisions shall be made to provide replacement on a one - for -one basis of any boat slips displaced during the period of displacement in a manner approved by the Planning Department. • 11111111 -27 COMMISSIONERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES m p0 m F City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX • 40. Construction workers shall utilize 'public parking lots at Palm Street and Main Street. .The applicant shall purchase parking permits in a manner approved by the , City. One space for each construction worker on the site during the construction period shall be purchased. At the earliest possible date, which shall be established by the Building Department, all construction workers shall be required to park in the parking structure. 41. An engineer's report on the adequacy of the existing bulkhead, including inspection and evaluation of all tie rods shall be prepared by the applicant prior to the issuance of a grading permit and approved by the Building and Marine Safety Departments for the proposed project. The engineer shall also evaluate potential loss of soil through the bulkhead wall and recommend an alternative support system for the bulkhead during the installation of sheet pilings as part of the report and shall provide for the protection of the existing bulkhead during the time that the tiebacks are affected by the excavation and construction process. 42. The owner . shall grant public access rights to the City and enter into an agreement with the City to keep the area from the bulkhead to the proposed structure free from hindrances to public access and to repair and keep the area in a good and safe condition at their sole cost and expense. 43. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport should be included in all leases or sub- leases for space in the project and should.be included in any Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site.' DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, herein, acknowledge that: • 11111111 -28- successors and assigns, ■� COMMISSIONERS June lo, 1982 MINUTES m � m m m F w. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I I INDEX a.) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b.) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; c,.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area 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. I I I I I ! 44. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project I shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. (Prior to the occupancy of any • structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning ,Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan). 45. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department and approval of the Planning Department. 46. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 47. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 48. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on fire- retardant vegetation. -29- 49. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department • and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. -29- June 10, 1982 3 � � r c ro m m m City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX 50. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 51. The landscaping plans adjacent to the parking garage entrances shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation for sight distance requirements. 52. The structure, shall retain a single design theme (both interior and exterior). Signage shall be of a similar design through the building, and shall be approved by the Planning Director. There shall be overall utilization of wooden lap siding on the exterior facade, complementing the Balboa Pavilion. I I ( I I I 53. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service +I equipment shall be shielded or screened by . architectural design. 54. Any carnival rides existing presently on the site that are to be incorporated into the proposed development and during the construction period stored in the City of Newport Beach shall be stored in an off -site location, not within a public right -of -way and in a manner approved by the City. 55. Maintenance agreements shall be required for all non- standard landscape improvements and materials and will be subject to approval by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation, Planning, and Public Works Departments. 56. The landscape plan shall be designed so as to be visually cohesive with the character of the Central Balboa area. Palm Street shall be planted with palm trees. East Bay Avenue, Washington Street, and Edgewater Place shall be landscaped with trees in such a manner as to achieve a canopy effect similar to Main Street in the Central Balboa area. • 11111111 -30- June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I i I I I INDEX r 1 U • 57. Street signs, tables, benches, planters, and other similar features onsite or adjacent to the project site shall be designed with a common theme and shall be approved by the Public Works; Parks Beaches & Recreation; and Planning Departments. 58. Prior to issuance of any building 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 subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport Area. 59. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to be no greater than 55 Dba at the property lines. 60. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said shall be attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning Department. 61. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may required automatic fire sprinkler protection. 62. The Fire Department access to the site shall be approved by the Fire Department. 63. That all buildings on. the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 64. The proposed project shall incorporate an internal securing system (i.e. security guards, alarms, access limits after hours) that shall be reviewed by the Police and Fire Department and approved by the Planning Department. -31- i 7 � r c o 7C m m D June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I i I I I INDEX r 1 U • 57. Street signs, tables, benches, planters, and other similar features onsite or adjacent to the project site shall be designed with a common theme and shall be approved by the Public Works; Parks Beaches & Recreation; and Planning Departments. 58. Prior to issuance of any building 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 subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport Area. 59. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to be no greater than 55 Dba at the property lines. 60. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said shall be attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning Department. 61. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may required automatic fire sprinkler protection. 62. The Fire Department access to the site shall be approved by the Fire Department. 63. That all buildings on. the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 64. The proposed project shall incorporate an internal securing system (i.e. security guards, alarms, access limits after hours) that shall be reviewed by the Police and Fire Department and approved by the Planning Department. -31- 'AMISSIONERSJ June lo, 1982 MINUTES �x m � W m W Po > City of Newport Beach INDEX 65. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 66. That all on site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 67. Fire vehicle access shall be approved by the Fire' Department for all public right -of -ways and easements improved by the applicant. 68. All work on the site shall be done in accordance with city Council Policy K -5_ and K -6. verification of said work shall be provided to the Building and Planning Departments. 69. No restaurant facilities shall be permitted onsite without an amendment to this use permit. Said:: amendment shall consider all restaurant uses proposed on the site at one time to insure that adequate offstreet parking may be provided or • establish specific criteria for future restaurant usage. 70. The proposed development shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of parking areas, walkways, and nonstandard pavement areas. 71. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 72. The final design of the project shall provide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. 73. Any construction on the site should be done in accordance with the height restriction. This shall apply to any landscape materials, signs, flags, etc. as well as structures, except as maybe modified by the approval of this use permit. 74. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent area. 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. -32- COMMISSK)NERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES m City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III III I INDEX 75. A cleanup program (weekly during the winter and daily during the summer) around the docks and public walks shall be conducted. During construction devices shall be installed to prevent waste from entering Newport Bay in a manner approved by the Building Department. 76. The final design of onsite vehicular and pedestrian circulation shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments prior to issuance of a grading permit. 77. Should the conditions of approval of this project reduce the number of required onsite offstreet parking spaces the space- o -matic parking spaces shall be eliminated first. 78. Provision shall be made for bicycle parking on the site for a minimum of 25 bicycles. . I I I I I I I I 79. Valets and /or attendants shall be provided at all times the project is in use. 80. Signalization of the intersection of East Balboa Boulevard and Palm Street shall be required. 81. The applicant shall provide for marina parking requirements. 82. The parking garage shall be designed to accommodate forty short -term parking spaces to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. 83. That the applicants shall provide free employee parking in the structure in a manner approved by the Planning Department. 84. The parking program, shall be designed so as to be a part of any lease agreement and lessee shall not be required to buy validation on an optional basis. 85. The applicant shall compensate the City of Newport Beach for the loss of revenues and for . each on- street parking space lost on East Bay -33- June 10, 1982 MINUTES � r c m � m Po City of Newport Beach c s a m m INDEX Avenue. Said compensation shall be based upon the cost of replacing (in the Central Balboa Area) any lost spaces and revenues as determined by the City. The compensation shall not include parking spaces lost in providing reasonable access to the property as determined by the City's Public works and Planning Departments. 86. The two (2) space- o- matics in the northeast corner of level two shall require further review and may not be permitted. 87. The design of all parking levels shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 88. Valets shall be required from one hour before to one hour after normal business hours of all building tenants. • 89. Access to tandem and space- o -matic spaces shall.be controlled during any hour when .valets are not present. 90., Space- o -matic devices shall not encroach into required stall sizes. 91. Nighttime lighting shall be limited to that which is customary for normal business operations and consistent with the proposed project design and architectural style. outlining of the proposed structure, including the ferris wheel, shall be permitted in a manner consistent with that of the Pavilion. The outlining, if accomplished, shall use smaller and dimmer bulbs than the Pavilion. Said lighting plans shall be approved by the Planning Director. 92. Fugitive dust emissions during demolition and construction shall be minimized by watering the site for dust control, containing excavated soil onsite until it is hauled away, and periodically • I I ( I I I washing adjacent streets to remove accumulated materials. -34- June 10, 1982 MINES �d: m m x 1 City of Newport Beach INDEX 93. A fan - assisted ventilation system shall be installed in the subterranean garage for use in peak -hour periods when natural ventilation is limited. 94. Heating and cooling systems shall be designed to take advantage of the natural site orientation and existing natural ventilation patterns to the maximum degree practical. 95. Prior to occupancy of the building, the applicant shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 96. Twenty- four -hour security shall be required on the project site as approved by the City of Newport Beach Police Department and Planning Department. 97. Prior to the issuance of any building, grading, and /or demolition permit the applicant shall record a restrictive convent guaranteeing the retention of the existing ferris wheel and carousel or their replacement with a similar ferris wheel and carousel. 98. Special paving treatment common to the project shall be provided for the public sidewalk areas on Palm Avenue and East Bay Avenue, and from the proposed building line to the Bulkhead line and for all of Washington Street in a manner acceptable to the Public Works and Planning Departments. 99. That any tables in the pedestrian easement area, be for 'general public use and that no food be served to customers at the tables by adjoining restaurants. 100. That during the construction period, a minimum 12 foot wide surface pedestrian way be maintained along the bay on weekends and holidays between April 1 and June 15 and September 15 and October 15; and that the 12 foot pedestrian way be maintained at all times between June 15 and • September 15. -35- June 10, 1982 MINUTES Vim= m w 3 City of Newport Beach INDEX 101. That prior to the issuance of the grading permit the applicant shall provide a plan to be approved by the Building and Marine Safety Departments which provides for the protection of the existing bulkhead during the time that the tiebacks are affected by the excavation and construction process. 102. That a waiting areas be provided outside the public right -of -way for valet parking users and that no sign or other devices relating to valet parking be placed in the public right -of -way area. 103. Handicapped parking shall be provided in a manner and quantity approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The handicapped parking shall be designed so as to be conveniently located near • elevators in the parking area. 104. The applicant shall enter into an agreement and post a bond guaranteeing the repair of all damage to the public street system and /or utilities that might be caused by the construction process. 105. The applicant shall enter into an agreement and provide a policy of insurance guaranteeing the repair of all damage to private property, business interruption, or other damage caused by the construction process. Said bonds shall be based upon conditions of approval of this project and studies required thereby and shall be approved by the City's Building Department, Public Works Department, City Attorney's Office and Finance Department. 106. The applicant shall enter into an agreement and post a bond(s) guaranteeing the completion of the proposed project in a manner satisfactory to the City Building Department and City Attorney's • Office. -36- • I� U June 10, 1982 � r � w m m m m w City of Newport Beach 107. The applicant shall enter into an agreement and post a bond(s) guaranteeing the completion of the proposed project to grade (parking structure completed and useable) within eight (8) months from the issuance of any grading permit. Sanctions for non - compliance and total amount that could be paid by the applicant in the event of non - compliance shall be established. The agreement and bond(s) shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney's Office and Building Department. 108. Prior to the issuance of any building, grading and/or demolition permits for the project the applicant shall agree to make such minor changes to the project as maybe caused by revisions to the Central Balboa area overall circulation system. The agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney's Office and Planning Department. 109. Prior to the issuance of any grading building and /or demolition permit the applicant shall deposit a sum of $7,000.00 to study the Central Balboa Area Circulation System. 110. That a minimum 15 -foot clear area be maintained within the easement area that will exist from the proposed building line to the bulkhead line. The exact location and design of said area shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department, Public Works Department, and Parks, Beaches and Recreation-Department. 111. That a 23 foot wide surface easement be granted to the City for pedestrian use adjacent and southerly of the existing 12 foot wide pedestrian easement located along the Bay side of the property. -37- MINUTES INDEX K x � r � m w c a a X m m D IT June 10, 1982 Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL i I I I Jill I INDEX RESUBDIVISION NO. 724 In response to a question posed by Commissioner King, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the deletion of Condition No. 21 does not change the general location of the ferris wheel as indicated on the approved plans. Motion Motion was made for the approval of RESUBDIVISION NO. Ayes X X X X 724, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Exhibit Noes IIIIXI X [[I "A ", including the suggestions as recommended by the Absent Public Works ,Department, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied • with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That all unused drive depressions be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. 4. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the parcel map or obtain a' I I { I ! building permit prior to completion of the public Ijf I improvements. -38- COMMISSIONERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES m � m W m H City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III III I INDEX 5. That all work within the public right -of -way be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That the on -site parking circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer.. 7. That a storm drain inlet at the Washington Street street -end be constructed and that a valve be installed in the storm drain line unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 8. That the intersection of the private drives with the public streets be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hours. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction 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 amy be approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to. approval of the Traffic Engineer. 9. That a corner cutoff, acceptable to the Public Works Department, at the corner of Palm Street and East Bay Avenue be dedicated to the public for pedestrian purposes. 10. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 11. That a study of existing public water, sewer and storm drain facilities available to the site be made by the development prior to recording the parcel map, to determine their capacities. Any upgrading modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required shall be the responsibility of the developer. All work on the public sewer, water, and storm drain systems shall be completed or bonded for prior to issuance of any building permits. • 1lllllll -39- • June lo, 1982 MINUTES �d° W d City of Newport Beach 12. That the existing 12' -wide pedestrian easement adjacent to the bay be kept free from all obstructions unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 13. That a condition survey of the existing bulkhead along the bay side of the property be made by a civil or structural engineer with particular attention to the impact that the proposed parking structure might have on it, and that the bulkhead . be repaired in conformance with the recommendations of the condition survey and to the satisfaction of the Building and Marine Departments. 14. That the existing deteriorated street lights be. replaced with new street lights as approved by the Public Works Department and Utilities Department, unless otherwise approved high pressure sodium -vapor lumanars with multiple a wiring system shall be provided. 15. That all landscaping and non - standard paving surfaces within the public right -of -way and pedestrian easement be approved by the .Public Works Department and that a license agreement be provided for maintenance of the non- standard improvements. 16. That the existing curb returns at the corner of East Bay Avenue and Palm Street be reconstructed with an access ramp. This may require the relocation of the existing palm tree at the corner of East Bay Avenue and Palm Street. 17. That the existing deteriorated concrete sidewalk and curb along the Palm Street,. East Bay Avenue and Washington Street frontages be reconstructed and that any unused driveway aprons be removed and replaced with curb and sidewalk. 18. That the existing overhead utilities along the Washington Street and Palm Street frontages shall be undergrounded. INDEX June lo, 1982 MINUTES �x � r c m w City of Newport Beach INDEX 19. That a 23 foot .wide surface easement be granted to the City for pedestrian use adjacent and southerly of the existing 12 foot wide pedestrian easement located along the Bay side of the property. 20. That the existing sidewalk width of 9' -6 on Palm Street, be maintained and that a 1' -6" easement for pedestrian purposes be granted to the City. 21. Deleted by Planning Commission. -41- 22. That an eight foot wide sidewalk be constructed on Bay Street and that the required additional right -of -way be dedicated to the City for pedestrian purposes. 23. That there be no permanent underground structural encroachments into the public right -of -way except under the new pedestrian easement on Edgewater Place without the approval of an Encroachment Permit and that any temporary encroachments be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 24. That applicant repair or replace (as determined by Utilities Department) and Public Words Departments any utility damaged through subsidence or any other construction activity related to the proposed development. 25. That during the construction period, a minimum 12 foot wide surface pedestrian way be maintained along the bay on weekends and holidays between April 1 and June 15 and September 15 and October 15; and that the 12 foot pedestrian way be " maintained at all times between June 15. and September 15. 26. That the applicant revise the proposed project so as to locate the structure on the .Washington Street property line and convert said street into a pedestrian /service area in a manner acceptable to the City Planning and Public Works Departments. • -41- 4AANSSIONERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES �x � r c m x City of Newport Beach INDEX VARIANCE N0. 1092 Motion X 'Motion was made for the approval of VARIANCE NO. 1092, All Ayes IX IX X X X subject to the Findings and Conditions of Exhibit "A" Absent * as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses in the same district. 2. That the granting of a. variance to allow the ferris wheel is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the ferris wheel has been located on -site for a longtime and provides a historical perspective to the area. • 3. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation, of the use, property, and building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety', peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the.City. 4. That the proposed "space- frame" grill work is approved as an architectural feature pursuant to Section 20.02.061 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. 2. That the ferris wheel shall be the only portion of the project that shall be allowed by this variance to exceed the height limit. • 3. That all the conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 724 be fulfilled. -42- June 10, 1982 MINUTES INDEX Request to consider amendments to Title 3 and Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing regulations pertaining to ,time -share developments in the City of Newport Beach. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Donald Michael, resident of 1730 Plaza del Norte, requested that the Planning Commission prohibit time -share projects in the City of Newport Beach and deny the draft Ordinance. APPROVED Mr. William Fundenberg, resident of Balboa Island, stated that he is opposed to time -share projects in the . City of Newport Beach. He stated that potential problems will occur with the collection of the transient occupancy tax, the responsibility of the operator, and the financial management plan. He expressed his concern that once an applicant for a time -share project has complied with the standards of the Ordinance, the Planning Commission may approve the application. Commissioner King stated that the Planning Commission reviews applications on a project by project basis, through the public hearing procedure. He stated that when the Planning Commission approves a project, conditions of approval are placed on the project, which are based upon the findings of the staff and the Commission, to insure that the project is constructed and operated in accordance with those conditions. Commissioner Balalis requested that the speakers comment on areas within the City which they feel time -share projects would be beneficial. For example, he stated that areas located near the airport or Newport Center may be considered more beneficial for time -share developments. Mr. Bill Shaver, representing the Lido Isle Community Association, stated that they are opposed to the concept of time -share projects in the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Shaver stated that they had also opposed • the time -share development which had been proposed at 3336 Via Lido Soud and submitted a petition on same. -43- r c ' m c s . a m m m m x City of Newport Beach INDEX Request to consider amendments to Title 3 and Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing regulations pertaining to ,time -share developments in the City of Newport Beach. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Donald Michael, resident of 1730 Plaza del Norte, requested that the Planning Commission prohibit time -share projects in the City of Newport Beach and deny the draft Ordinance. APPROVED Mr. William Fundenberg, resident of Balboa Island, stated that he is opposed to time -share projects in the . City of Newport Beach. He stated that potential problems will occur with the collection of the transient occupancy tax, the responsibility of the operator, and the financial management plan. He expressed his concern that once an applicant for a time -share project has complied with the standards of the Ordinance, the Planning Commission may approve the application. Commissioner King stated that the Planning Commission reviews applications on a project by project basis, through the public hearing procedure. He stated that when the Planning Commission approves a project, conditions of approval are placed on the project, which are based upon the findings of the staff and the Commission, to insure that the project is constructed and operated in accordance with those conditions. Commissioner Balalis requested that the speakers comment on areas within the City which they feel time -share projects would be beneficial. For example, he stated that areas located near the airport or Newport Center may be considered more beneficial for time -share developments. Mr. Bill Shaver, representing the Lido Isle Community Association, stated that they are opposed to the concept of time -share projects in the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Shaver stated that they had also opposed • the time -share development which had been proposed at 3336 Via Lido Soud and submitted a petition on same. -43- 7n'. June 10, 1982 City of Newport Beach Mr. Shaver stated that the proposed Ordinance may as well contain . regulations on time- sharing boats and horses. He stated that time -share units are normally sold in 20 to 25 year increments and then reverted to the owner. He stated that if the useful life of the building is 30 to 40 years, the time -share process could occur twice in one building. Mr. Shaver, expressed his concern with the potential parking problems and stated that the parking standards in the proposed Ordinance are not adequate. He further expressed his concern that the on -site recreational facilities will include video games and a bike rack. Mr. Shaver stated that the proposed Ordinance provides for Planning Commission consideration of reversion of land and buildings to the City after the 30 to 40 year useful life of the project. He stated that the "consideration" of this item is too weak and needs to • have stronger wording. He stated that the Conversions Prohibited clause in Section 20.76.020 is excellent. He also stated that any time -share project of 20 or fewer units would be doomed to failure, therefore he suggested that the number of time -share units be greater than 20 units. • In summary, Mr. Shaver stated that the proposed Ordinance is too weak to be viable. He stated that the unique characteristics of time -share projects can have an adverse impact on immediately adjacent areas and the City as a whole. MINUTES Commissioner King asked Mr. Shaver if he.would. oppose a time -share project in the airport area or in a hotel designated zone. -Mr. Shaver stated that he is opposed to the time -share concept in the City of Newport Beach. Ms. Carmalita Moffit, resident of 108 Via Orvieto, read to the Commission an article by State Senator Neal Abacromby of Hawaii, relating to his opposition to time -share projects wherein he stated that time -share projects are a cancer on the residents and the community. -44- INDEX June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES I ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX ■ Mr. John Dryden of 3326 Via Lido, urged the prohibition of time -share developments within the City of Newport Beach. He stated .that.,the California Department of Real Estate currently has a moratorium on any and all time -share project applications submitted after October 1, 1981. He stated that time -share projects create continual problems and Hawaii has already stated that they would like to get rid of them. He stated that the landowner, the developer, the salesmen and the liquor stores are the only ones who benefit from such developments. He stated that the people who buy these units will get restless and will not want to go to the same place every year. He added that he is opposed to time -share developments in any area of the City. Commissioner. Balalis stated that there are over 1,000 units today in Newport Beach that rent on a weekly basis during the summer months, which is probably the worlds largest time- share, without ownership. Mr. Dryden stated that these units may be rented out on a weekly basis during the summer months, but the owner or a suitable renter uses the unit for the remaining nine months out of the year. Mr. Robert Glasser of 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, appeared before the Commission in support of the proposed Time -Share Ordinance. He stated that time -share projects around the world are also found in mixed, resort residential areas. He stated that the Ordinance as proposed, controls the exchange programs which may be utilized by the.development. Mr. Glasser stated that the proposed Ordinance is the most regulatory, comprehensive Time -Share Ordinance in this country. He suggested that the proposed Ordinance could also include a sales solicitation program section. He stated that geographically, Newport Beach is considered a resort area because it is located on the ocean and the bay. He stated that the proposed Ordinance gives the Planning Commission a great deal of control over who will be time =share owners. . He stated that the time -share owners will have to be able to Afford the considerable costs of the units. He stated that the Planning Commission can also 'control the number of cars and the daily trips of a time -share unit. -45- � r c � m m June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES I ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX ■ Mr. John Dryden of 3326 Via Lido, urged the prohibition of time -share developments within the City of Newport Beach. He stated .that.,the California Department of Real Estate currently has a moratorium on any and all time -share project applications submitted after October 1, 1981. He stated that time -share projects create continual problems and Hawaii has already stated that they would like to get rid of them. He stated that the landowner, the developer, the salesmen and the liquor stores are the only ones who benefit from such developments. He stated that the people who buy these units will get restless and will not want to go to the same place every year. He added that he is opposed to time -share developments in any area of the City. Commissioner. Balalis stated that there are over 1,000 units today in Newport Beach that rent on a weekly basis during the summer months, which is probably the worlds largest time- share, without ownership. Mr. Dryden stated that these units may be rented out on a weekly basis during the summer months, but the owner or a suitable renter uses the unit for the remaining nine months out of the year. Mr. Robert Glasser of 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, appeared before the Commission in support of the proposed Time -Share Ordinance. He stated that time -share projects around the world are also found in mixed, resort residential areas. He stated that the Ordinance as proposed, controls the exchange programs which may be utilized by the.development. Mr. Glasser stated that the proposed Ordinance is the most regulatory, comprehensive Time -Share Ordinance in this country. He suggested that the proposed Ordinance could also include a sales solicitation program section. He stated that geographically, Newport Beach is considered a resort area because it is located on the ocean and the bay. He stated that the proposed Ordinance gives the Planning Commission a great deal of control over who will be time =share owners. . He stated that the time -share owners will have to be able to Afford the considerable costs of the units. He stated that the Planning Commission can also 'control the number of cars and the daily trips of a time -share unit. -45- r c m � OD 7C m D � c m June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I i i I I INDEX Mr. Glasser stated that the time -share owners will be paying a bed tax, along with a portion of the property tax to the City. He explained how a time -share operator manages a facility and collects the monies from the time -share owners. He stated that if a time -share project should create a problem, it is subject to revocation under the use permit procedures. He stated that the project could even be conditioned, as a penalty, for a reversion of the interest to the City. Commissioner King asked if the line of succession in fee ownership .developments has been tested in court, irrespective of the conditions imposed by the City. Mr. Glasser stated that he was not aware of any, but stated that the Commission can regulate forfeiture of the reversionary interest and forfeiture of the time -share interest. Mr. Glasser stated that the creation of a time -share project allows for a higher degree of amenities to be built within a structure, than that of a.hotel or motel project, such as kitchen facilities and more on -site, recreational facilities. Commissioner King asked if the entire time -share project use can be revoked through the behavior of one tenant. Mr. Glasser stated that under due process procedures, the offending parties non - compliance with the regulations can result in forfeiture of the time -share interest, or the loss of his interest for some value. Mr. Glasser stated that all of the issues relating to time -share projects can be dealt with in a satisfactory and positive manner. He again urged approval of the proposed Ordinance establishing regulations pertaining to time -share developments in the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Harry Hanson, resident of 201 Via San Remo, expressed his concern with the sale and resale of the time -share units. He stated that the original buyers of the time -share units will encounter problems when they decide to sell their time -share unit, because IMM June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES R O L L CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX , they will not have the advantage of the enormous hype and promotion which occurred when the units were new on the market. He stated that this will inevitably cause the time -share 'concept to fail. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Exhibit "B" which would prohibit time -share developments and stated that this was patterned from ordinances which have been adopted in the Cities of Monterey and Rancho Mirage. He stated that there have been no legal challenges on the ordinances prohibiting time -share developments, as yet. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated' that an ordinance prohibiting time -share developments would be valid. Commissioner Kurlander asked if the City would be justified in requiring reversionary rights. Mr. Burnham stated that if the right to occupy time had expired for the individual time -share unit owners, the owners would not likely have a right to ownership. Mr. Burnham stated that the City would probably use. the • property for parks and recreational facilities. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he questions the reversionary rights of the City, when the City only has an interest in the conditional use permit. Mr. Burnham concurred. Motion Motion was made for approval of Exhibit "B ", which is I an Ordinance prohibiting the development of time -share projects within the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner King stated that he would be voting against the motion, because an individual should have the opportunity to defend the use of his property, whether the use is popular or not. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would like the opportunity to hear.the applications on a case by case basis. He stated that he would like to learn more about the problems which have arisen in other time -share projects around the country. However, he stated that he would not like to vote to prohibit time -share projects in perpetuity in the City of Newport Beach. Chairman McLaughlin stated that she understands the • concerns as expressed by Commissioner King and Commissioner Balalis. -47- X � r c c 0= m D p June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES R O L L CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX , they will not have the advantage of the enormous hype and promotion which occurred when the units were new on the market. He stated that this will inevitably cause the time -share 'concept to fail. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Exhibit "B" which would prohibit time -share developments and stated that this was patterned from ordinances which have been adopted in the Cities of Monterey and Rancho Mirage. He stated that there have been no legal challenges on the ordinances prohibiting time -share developments, as yet. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated' that an ordinance prohibiting time -share developments would be valid. Commissioner Kurlander asked if the City would be justified in requiring reversionary rights. Mr. Burnham stated that if the right to occupy time had expired for the individual time -share unit owners, the owners would not likely have a right to ownership. Mr. Burnham stated that the City would probably use. the • property for parks and recreational facilities. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he questions the reversionary rights of the City, when the City only has an interest in the conditional use permit. Mr. Burnham concurred. Motion Motion was made for approval of Exhibit "B ", which is I an Ordinance prohibiting the development of time -share projects within the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner King stated that he would be voting against the motion, because an individual should have the opportunity to defend the use of his property, whether the use is popular or not. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would like the opportunity to hear.the applications on a case by case basis. He stated that he would like to learn more about the problems which have arisen in other time -share projects around the country. However, he stated that he would not like to vote to prohibit time -share projects in perpetuity in the City of Newport Beach. Chairman McLaughlin stated that she understands the • concerns as expressed by Commissioner King and Commissioner Balalis. -47- June 10, 1982 MINUTES �x ode m to F City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Balalis suggested that the Commission approve a time -share ordinance with more provisions which would make the ordinance more stringent. He stated that perhaps time -share projects could be eliminated entirely from residential areas and limited to locations near the airport and Newport Center. Ayes I 1111 IX I I Motion for approval of Exhibit "B ", prohibiting the Noes X X development of time -share projects within the City of Absent Newport Beach, was now voted on, which MOTION FAILED. Commissioner King stated that the proposed Ordinance will control the problems of time -share projects. He stated that the public hearing process will enable the Commission and public to give their input upon each individual time -share application. �ion I I 111 1 Motion was made for approval of Amendment No. 573, Exhibit "A ", establishing regulations pertaining to time -share developments in the City of Newport Beach. Amendment Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Balalis. He referred to Section 20.76.035, Paragraph D, and stated that the project should contain not less than fifty (50) time -share units, rather than twenty .(20) time -share units. Planning Director Hewicker stated that within the proposed Ordinance, the Planning Commission has the right to waive the development standards. Commissioner Balalis stated that the larger the number of units within a time -share development, the easier it will be for the association to collect the funds to maintain a full -time manager and to take care of the on -site facilities. All Ayes IX +XIXIX �X �*) Amendment to the motion by Commissioner Balalis was now I I I voted on, which AMENDMENT CARRIED. IIIIIII1 -48 ROLL CALL June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker stated that under the proposed Ordinance, time -share projects may be permitted in the.R -3, R -4, C -O, C -1 and C -2 Districts, and Specific Plan Areas (SP) and Planned Community Districts (P -C) where hotel or motel uses are permitted, subject to the securing of a use permit in each case. Commissioner Balalis stated that time -share developments should be located in areas which have the least amount of impact to residential areas. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the proposed Ordinance only suggests those zoning districts which permit hotel or motel uses, which is the closest similar use to the time -share use. He stated that this would also be subject to the securing of a use permit in each case. dment X Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Kurlander. He referred to Section 20.76.035, Paragraph E, and stated that the project should .provide on -site parking spaces in the amount of not less than one and one -half (1') spaces for each unit, rather than one (1) space for each unit. He stated that this would be consistent with what is currently required for a residential unit. He stated that his amendment would also include the one (1) additional space for each five (5) units, or fraction thereof. Commissioner King Acceptance X stated that he would accept this as an amendment to his motion. Commissioner King asked Mr. Burnham to clarify the reversion process and the construction quality criteria' for the useful life of a project which is involved. Mr. Burnham stated that the reversion would be accomplished at the conclusion of the term of ownership. He stated that the proposed Ordinance does not require the Planning Commission to impose a reversion condition upon an applicant. He stated that there may be projects in which such a reversion condition would not be appropriate. He stated that such a condition should be based upon the information • provided by the project applicant. -49- � r c m ' W ROLL CALL June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker stated that under the proposed Ordinance, time -share projects may be permitted in the.R -3, R -4, C -O, C -1 and C -2 Districts, and Specific Plan Areas (SP) and Planned Community Districts (P -C) where hotel or motel uses are permitted, subject to the securing of a use permit in each case. Commissioner Balalis stated that time -share developments should be located in areas which have the least amount of impact to residential areas. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the proposed Ordinance only suggests those zoning districts which permit hotel or motel uses, which is the closest similar use to the time -share use. He stated that this would also be subject to the securing of a use permit in each case. dment X Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Kurlander. He referred to Section 20.76.035, Paragraph E, and stated that the project should .provide on -site parking spaces in the amount of not less than one and one -half (1') spaces for each unit, rather than one (1) space for each unit. He stated that this would be consistent with what is currently required for a residential unit. He stated that his amendment would also include the one (1) additional space for each five (5) units, or fraction thereof. Commissioner King Acceptance X stated that he would accept this as an amendment to his motion. Commissioner King asked Mr. Burnham to clarify the reversion process and the construction quality criteria' for the useful life of a project which is involved. Mr. Burnham stated that the reversion would be accomplished at the conclusion of the term of ownership. He stated that the proposed Ordinance does not require the Planning Commission to impose a reversion condition upon an applicant. He stated that there may be projects in which such a reversion condition would not be appropriate. He stated that such a condition should be based upon the information • provided by the project applicant. -49- Ayes Noes Absent � r c m � m c ro T m m c � n )1 W June 10, 1982 Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner King asked if the owners of 'a time -share development could decide collectively, to abandon the use, "prior to its useful life 'completion, and.. reconstruct a higher and better use in the future. Mr. Burnham stated that this could be accomplished. through., an amendment' to the use permit, unless ;it was an already permitted use of the zone in which it, is located, for the remainder of the term. He stated that a waiver of a reversionary interest, would be subject to Planning Commission and City Council approval. Commissioner King's amended motion to adopt Resolution RESOLUTII No. 1081, approving Amendment No. 573, establishing NO. 1081 * regulations pertaining to 'time -share developments in the City of Newport Beach; as revised by the previous amendments, was now voted _on, which AMENDED- MOTION' CARRIED. -.(See 'attached Exhibit. "A" for the text of the - approved Time -Share Ordinance). x x * Request to permit the installation of outdoor lighting Item #6 on 20 foot high standards in conjunction with an existing tennis court in the R -1 -B -2 District. - - LOCATION: A- portion of Lot 287, Newport Heights_- USE PERMIT - '..Tract, located -at -2321 22nd Street on -- OF^2082 the. southerly side of 22nd .Street, between Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue. -- ZONE: R -1 -B-2 - Continued . APPLICANT: - Roger .Lub Newport - t0 198 y, wport Beach 22, 1982 OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened in 'connection with this item. and Mr.:Roger.Luby, the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of his request. , 3 X � r c m ' d D June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX ■ Mr. Luby stated that he is requesting the tennis court lighting because his family is.a tennis orientated family. He stated that he is willing to lower his lighting standards to 16 feet,, rather than the original request of 20 foot high standards. He stated that the lighting of the courts will be used primarily in the winter months. He stated that they are well aware of the concerns of the neighbors and stated that the proposed lighting system will not create any problems for his neighbors. Commissioner Beek referred to a letter dated June 4, 1982 from Mr. Ken Steelman, which states that when the former owner of the subject property applied for a use permit to install a tennis court, the neighbors were assured that no tennis court lights would be erected. Mr. Luby stated that he is aware of the letter, but stated that he was not aware of this issue when he purchased the property four years ago. • I I I I I In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Luby also stated that he would be willing to place a 9:00 p.m. curfew on this use permit. Mr. Richard Miller, resident of 2306 Winward Lane, stated that a lighted tennis court is not within the character of the residential neighborhood. He stated that the installation of lighting standards would have an adverse impact and be an infringement upon his view. He stated that eight lighting standards with 8,000 watts of lighting, contiguous to his property, would be detrimental to his property. He also expressed his concern with the noise which will be generated by the tennis court use in the evening. He stated that approval of such a request would be setting a precedent for the area. Mr. Miller submitted a letter from Mr. Dana Lee, property owner of 2300 Winward Lane, which states his opposition on the basis of evening noise generation and visual effects. Mr. A1.Bartolic, resident of 2512 Winward Lane, stated that he is opposed to the lighting of the tennis courts as it will adversely affect his view corridor. He . urged denial of the requested use permit. -51- June 10, 1982 MINUTES ems m m m m w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Mr. Herbert Bieber, representing Bieber Lighting Corporation, stated that his company will be installing the proposed ,tennis court lighting. He distributed a brochure and letters of recommendation from the Cities of Torrance and Beverly Hills of the proposed lighting system. He stated that the proposed lighting system is designed to be aesthetically pleasing. He also described the light shield which will be utilized that confines the light almost exclusively to the tennis court. He stated that because of the lay -out of the property in question, the 16 foot high lighting fixtures will not be visible to the surrounding neighbors. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Bieber stated that placing the lighting standards lower than 16 feet would not be feasible. He stated that 22 feet is the best height for the lighting standards, but stated that the applicant is willing to lower the lighting standards to 16 feet. Mrs. Sandra Luby, the applicant, stated that they have improved, the neighborhood with the . upgrading and landscaping, of their home. She stated that none of the neighbors views will be affected by the proposed tennis court lighting. She stated that the airplanes and pools make more noise than their tennis court. She urged approval of the requested use permit. Commissioner Beek stated that sometimes 9:00 P.M. curfews are difficult to enforce and asked if it would be feasible to run the power line to the fence so that the neighbors can turn the lights off at 9:00 p.m. Mrs. Luby stated that this would.be acceptable and she stated that they would also be willing to include this in their title policy and conditions, covenants and " restrictions that the curfew would be enforced. She also stated that they would be willing to put the lights on an automatic timer. . Commissioner King recommended that the use permit be denied subject to the findings of the 'staff report, which would be consistent with the Planning Commission's prior policy on this issue. • 11111111 -52 COMMISSK)NERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES 3 � � r c m � m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL M III, JINDEX Chairman McLaughlin asked if it would be possible to see a demonstration of the proposed lighting system. Commissioner .Balalis stated that perhaps they could have the addresses of other locations which have installed the proposed lighting system. Mr. Bieber stated that he could arrange for this. Commissioner Beek asked the applicant if they would be agreeable to a continuance on this matter. Mr. Luby' stated that this would be acceptable. Motion X Motion was made for a continuance of this item to July All Ayes X X X Y X X * 22, 1982, in order for the Planning Commission to view other locations which have installed the proposed lighting system and to see a demonstration of the proposed lighting fixture, which MOTION CARRIED. F'i. l • Request to permit the extension of an expiration date on a previously approved use permit that permitted a 29 -unit residential condominium development in the Unclassified District. LOCATION: Tract 11018, located at 1455 Superior NO. 2084 Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Superior Avenue, southwesterly of Placentia Avenue, in the West- Newport Triangle. APPROVED ZONE: Unclassified - - CONDI- TIONALLY APPLICANT: Heltzer Enterprises, Los Angeles OWNER: Same as applicant _ The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. David Neish, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission and requested the extension approval. • I I I I ( I I In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Planning Director Hewicker stated that this is the last extension which can be approved for this item. -53- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ,Tune 10, 1982 � r c m � m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2084, All Ayes X X X X X * subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual . utility connections. 2. The project complies with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. • 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health,, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. • I I I I I I I -54- � r � m m W ro D 10 F b J June 10, 1982 of Newport Beach MINUTES 2. That all applicable conditions of approval imposed by the Orange County Planning Commission in conjunction with the approval of Use Permit No. 80 -32P shall be met. Where the previously imposed conditions of approval require that a specific County official approve any element of the project, the equivalent official of the City of Newport Beach shall now verify compliance. Should any of the following conditions of approval imposed by the City of Newport Beach conflict with any conditions imposed by the Orange County Planning Commission, then the conditions set forth herein shall apply. 3. That this use permit is valid for a period of two years. Building permits shall be secured and construction commenced in a timely manner prior to the expiration date or this use permit shall become null and void. • 4. That all applicable conditions of approval of Final Tract No. 11018 be fulfilled. 1 5. That the proposed retaining wall along the westerly 50 feet of the property adjacent to Medical Lane be relocated to 4.5 feet back of the curb with a 4.5 foot wide P.C.C. sidewalk constructed adjacent to the curb. That either the retaining wall be constructed behind the sidewalk high enough to act as a safety railing to protect pedestrian traffic or that safety railing be installed as approved by the Public Works Department. 6., That each dwelling unit 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. 7. That all provisions of the Uniform Building Code shall be met. * * x -55- INDEX COMMISSIONERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES �;K � r c m � m m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I INDEX Request to permit .the construction of a 2 -unit IlItem #8 residential condominium development and related garage I spaces in the.R -2 District. AND Request to create a single parcel of land for �. residential condominium development where one lot and a portion of a second lot presently exist. AND LOCATION: Lot 7 and a portion of Lot 5, Block 236, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 305 and 307 Jasmine Avenue, on the westerly side of Jasmine Avenue, between Seaview Item #9 Avenue and Bayside Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 • RESUB- APPLICANT: Clignett Associates, San Juan Capistrano DIVISIOf NO. 725 OWNER: Sid Carp, Corona del Mar ENGINEER: Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Costa Mesa BOTH Agenda Items No. 8 and 9 were heard concurrently due to APPROV their relationship. CONDI- Commissioner Balalis stated that he would be abstaining from participating on these items due, to a possible conflict of interest. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Sid Carp, the owner, requested approval of these items. Commissioner Beek stated that he would be making the motion for approval of these items because this is the first condominium conversion which contains the required number of square footage to be a legal subdivision. • ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -56- June 10, 1982 c2 r c w � W W m x City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX MotionX Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2085, Ayes X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, which Abstain X MOTION CARRIED: Absent FINDINGS: - - 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. • 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. That no low or moderate income persons will be evicted or displaced in conjunction with the proposed residential condominium development, as required under Section 65590 of the California Government Code. 7. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. • 11111111 -57- "MISSIONERS June 10, 1982 � r c m � m . m m x w. City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I III I I INDEX . CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be. in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 725 be fulfilled. Motion x Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 725, Ayes x X X x subject to the following findings and conditions, which Abstain x MOTION CARRIED: Absent FINDINGS: - • 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is • I I 1 I l I I I desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. -58- June 10, 1982 MINUTES K ;K � r c m City of Newport Beach INDEX 4. That each dwelling unit 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. 5. That the existing tree damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed and the existing drive apron removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Jasmine Avenue frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department, and that the existing tree be root - pruned or removed and replaced as recommended by the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation. 6. That all vehicular access to the parcel be from the adjacent alley. • Item #10 West Newport Study Area (Continued Discussion) Request to discuss the data analysis for the West WEST Newport Study Area. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion Motion was made to set this item for study session and Continued All Ayes X X X X * public hearing on August 19, 1982, which MOTION to August CARRIED. - 19, 1982 * * * • Request to establish a single parcel of land and " eliminate an interior lot line where two lots presently Item #11 exist so as to allow the construction of a restaurant facility on the subject property: LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Block 425., Landcaster's RESUB- Addition to Newport Beach, located at DIVISION 2800 Lafayette Avenue, on the NO. 726 northeasterly corner of Lafayette Avenue and 28th Street in Cannery Village. ZONE: M -1 -59- COMMISSIONERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES 3 � m y m m x w City of Newport Beach CALL INDEX APPLICANT: - T -W Investors /Seaside Limited, Laguna Beach APPROVED CONDI- OWNER: Nick Delaney /Seaside Limited, TI G-N-A—LLY Laguna Beach . ENGINEER: Archi- Tekton, Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker stated that the applicant was present earlier in the meeting. He stated that due to the lateness of the hour, the applicant may have left the meeting. Chairman McLaughlin stated that the Commission would decide the item without the applicant being present. Mod on X Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 726, Ayes X X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, which Abstain X MOTION CARRIED: Absent . FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable' general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the 'plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1949 (Amended) be • ..fulfilled. -60- June 10, 1982 MINUTES 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. 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 repaired, if necessary in conformance with the recommendations of the condition survey, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Marine Departments. In addition, the top of the bulkhead shall be raised to an elevation of +9.0 MLLW. 5. That a five foot wide easement be granted to the City for obstructed public access across:' the Bay side of the parcel adjacent to the Rhine Channel. The easement shall be improved and connected to the 28th Street • end in a manner approved by the Public Works Department. 6. That a ten foot .radius corner cutoff. at the northeast corner of Lafayette Avenue and 28th Street be dedicated to the public. 7. That the curb return on the northeast corner of Lafayette Avenue and 28th Street be reconstructed, using a twenty foot. radius and providing a curb access ramp. 8. That two foot P.C.C. gutter be constructed adjacent to the existing . curb along Lafayette Avenue and 28th Street frontages. The grades for the gutter construction shall be provided to the Public Works Department for review. 9. That a sta surety be satisfactory ments if it map before completed. • ndard agreement provided to completion of is desired to the public -61- and accompanying guarantee the public improve - record the parcel improvements are INDEX � r c m W. >I City of Newport Beach 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. 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 repaired, if necessary in conformance with the recommendations of the condition survey, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Marine Departments. In addition, the top of the bulkhead shall be raised to an elevation of +9.0 MLLW. 5. That a five foot wide easement be granted to the City for obstructed public access across:' the Bay side of the parcel adjacent to the Rhine Channel. The easement shall be improved and connected to the 28th Street • end in a manner approved by the Public Works Department. 6. That a ten foot .radius corner cutoff. at the northeast corner of Lafayette Avenue and 28th Street be dedicated to the public. 7. That the curb return on the northeast corner of Lafayette Avenue and 28th Street be reconstructed, using a twenty foot. radius and providing a curb access ramp. 8. That two foot P.C.C. gutter be constructed adjacent to the existing . curb along Lafayette Avenue and 28th Street frontages. The grades for the gutter construction shall be provided to the Public Works Department for review. 9. That a sta surety be satisfactory ments if it map before completed. • ndard agreement provided to completion of is desired to the public -61- and accompanying guarantee the public improve - record the parcel improvements are INDEX • Motion Ayes Noes Abstain Absent • � r c m � m C) xX1X X June lo, 1982 MINUTES Ity of Newport Beach I INDEX Request to permit the construction of a two -unit (Item #12 residential condominium development and related garage spaces in the.R -4 District. AND USE PERMIT NO. 2088 Request to create a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes where one lot presently exists. LOCATION: Lot 9, Block 16, Section B, Newport AND .Beach Tract, located at 1618 West Ocean Front on the northerly side of West Ocean Front, between 16th Street and 17th Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. Item #13' ZONE: R -4 APPLICANT: Al Pegneri for Balalis Corp., - - Newport Beach - - RESUB- - DIVISION OWNER: Barbara Haisch, San Dimas IND. 727 Agenda Items No. 12 and 13 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. BOTH Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not be APPROVED participating on these items, due to a conflict of TON DI- interest. TIONALLY The public hearing 'opened in connection with these items and Mr. Todd'Schooler, the architect for the project, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of these items. Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2088, subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINrSe 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. -62- COMMISSIONERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES � r c m m � > City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 117DEX 2. The project will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements. for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not, under the • circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 727 be fulfilled. 4. That all provisions of the Uniform Building Code shall be met. • I I' I I 1 I -63- June lo, 1982 MINUTES Motion X Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 727, Ayes X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, which Noes X MOTION CARRIED: Abstain X Absent FINSINCS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That 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. n LJ CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and /or sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That the driveway paving join the existing alley paving prior to signing off the building, permit upon completion of the structure. INDEX m w City of Newport Beach Motion X Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 727, Ayes X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, which Noes X MOTION CARRIED: Abstain X Absent FINSINCS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That 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. n LJ CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and /or sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That the driveway paving join the existing alley paving prior to signing off the building, permit upon completion of the structure. INDEX COMMISSIOI'4ERS MINUTES June 10, 1982 m � m w. City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III III I INDEX Request to further amend a previously approved use i permit that allowed a restaurant- theatre complex with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment so as to expand the theatre area. within the. existing facility. Said application also includes the acceptance of an off -site parking agreement for a U portion of the required parking spaces to be provided N at an existing parking lot located at the northeasterly corner of Finley Avenue and Avenue and Clubhouse Avenue. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 2, Tract No. 1117, located at 3505 Via Oporto, on the southeasterly corner of Central Avenue and APPROVED Via Oporto, in Lido Marina.Village CONDI- TI N tLY ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Magic Island, Newport Beach • OWNER: Lido Marina Village, Newport Beach Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not be participating on this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Michael Callie, President of Magic Island, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Callie explained the background information on this request. He stated that they will obtain an off -site parking agreement for 18 parking spaces for their employee parking. Commissioner King expressed his concern with how the off -site parking lot will be monitored. He suggested that an attendant be present on the off -site parking lot or a controlled card passage mechanism and spikes be installed which would allow only entrance to the employees. Mr. Callie stated that such a device would be acceptable. Mr. Callie asked if chains would be more acceptable on the off -site parking lot. Commissioner King stated that chains on parking lots in the past, have not been . successful. -65- COMMISSIONERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES F; ln-1il- m F City of New p o r t Beach ROLLCALLI III III I INDEX Mr. John Callahan, resident across the street from the proposed off -site parking lot, stated that the suggestion by Commissioner. King for the ingress and egress of the lot would be acceptable. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No.. 1956 Ayes X X K X (Amended), subject to the following findings and Abstain X conditions, including an additional condition for the Absent * installation of a controlled card passage mechanism and spikes for the ingress and egress of the proposed off -site parking lot, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS:. 1. The proposed theatre expansion at night is consistent with the General Plan, and is'', compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The Police Department has indicated that they do • not contemplate any problems. 3. The proposed project will not have any significant., environmental impact. 4. Adequate off - street parking spaces are being provided in conjunction with the proposed expansion of the Magic Island facility. • 5. The off - street parking spaces for the expanded restaurant on a separate lot from the. building site is justifiable for the following reasons: (a) Such lot is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed use at Magic Island. (b) Parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. (c) The leasehold interest is of adequate duration to serve the intended purpose, which is to provide sufficient parking for the Magic Island Facility. i= r m ED W c ?aim?' D Ci June lo, 1982 MINUTES of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1956 (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 development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved floor plans. 2. That all previously imposed Conditions of Approval of Use Permit No. 1956 (Amended) and Variance No. 1088 shall remain in effect except as noted below. 3. That a minimum of one parking space for each 40 sq. ft. of "net public area" shall be provided for the restaurant and lounge portions, and a minimum of one parking space for each 5 occupants in the • stage areas of the restaurant facility shall be provided. 4. Than an off -site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council, guaranteeing that a' minimum of 11 parking spaces shall be provided on Lots 7 and 8, Block 432, Canal Section, for the expanded restaurant /theatre facility. If the applicant loses the use of the subject parking spaces at a later date and cannot obtain the required number of parking spaces at another approved location, the "net public area" of the restaurant facility ,shall be reduced so as not to exceed the "net public area" that currently exists on the site. 5. That the subject off -site parking location shall be used for the employees of Magic Island only. 6. Employees parking in the off -site parking lot shall exit the lot into the alley toward the world Gas Station and onto Newport Boulevard; away from the main residential area. 7. That the second floor theatre area shall be used • only at night and on weekends. The previously approved daytime use shall be limited to the first floor area only. -67- COMMISSIONERS June lo, 1952 MINUTES �x � r c m m x m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL III III I INDEX 8. That a controlled card passage mechanism and spikes for ingress and egress of the proposed off -site parking lot be installed. Staff recommended that this request be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 22,1982, so as to give the City Council adequate time to consider the provisions of the proposed Electronic Video Game Machines Ordinance. Motion Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 1992 to the All Ayes X X X X X * Planning Commission Meeting of July 22, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. • 11111111 -68- Request to amend certain conditions of a previously Item #15 approved use permit which permitted the establishment of an entertainment center with electronic games of skill on property located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: Lot 9 through 15, Block 22, Newport USE PERMIT Beach Tract, located at 122 23rd N0: 1 992 Street; on the easterly side of 23rd Street, between West Balboa Boulevard and West Ocean Front, in the McFadden - . Square Area. ZONE: C -1 Continued APPLICANTS: Dennis Young and Floyd.Kaylor, to July 22, 1982 Newport Beach OWNER: Francis Ursini, Newport Beach Staff recommended that this request be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 22,1982, so as to give the City Council adequate time to consider the provisions of the proposed Electronic Video Game Machines Ordinance. Motion Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 1992 to the All Ayes X X X X X * Planning Commission Meeting of July 22, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. • 11111111 -68- COMMISSIONERS June 10, 1982 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Request to consider setting for public hearing, an Item #16 amendment to a portion of Districting Map No. 9, to reclassify the Marinapark Mobile Home Park site from the Unclassified District to the Unclassified/MHP District. PROPOSED AMENDR T LOCATION:- The Marinapark Mobile Home Park property,:.. FOR located at 1770 West Balboa Boulevard, MARINAPARK northerly of West Balboa Boulevard, between 15th Street and 18th Street on Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant • Commissioner Winburn suggested that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission have the opportunity to review the studies on this item to determine if there is a higher and better use, prior to the public hearing on this issue. Planning Director Hewicker concurred. Commissioner Balalis stated that the two iron posts located in front of the sidewalk at the entrance of this property should be removed. He stated that the two iron posts do not serve a purpose and create a nuisance to the public. . Motion X Motion was made to refer this item to the Parks, A11 Ayes X X X X X X * Beaches and Recreation Commission for a report, and to set for public hearing with the Planning Commission on August 5, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. x x x • IIIIII11 'Y \lVV.7.JN1NLIW June 10, 1982 a m m City of Newport Beach ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Housing Element Implementation The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that a task force be appointed by the City Council to investigate the CDBG and mortgage revenue bond programs. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that Commissioner Balalis and Commissioner King be appointed as two of the members of said task force. Study Session set for 2:00 p.m. on August 5, 1982, to continue discussion of increased residential density and discussion of financing alternatives. * x x Agenda of June 24, 1982 'Potion X Motion was made to hear the DeAnza Mobile Home Park Ayes X X issue first on the June 24, 1982 Planning Commission Noes X Y Agenda, and the Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church Abstain X X * request second on the Agenda, which MOTION FAILED. Absent Excused Absence Motion X Motion was made for an excused absence for Commissioner All Ayes 1X1 X X X * Winburn from the Planning Commission Meeting of June 24, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. F.'i l There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:45 p.m.. x ,r Joan Winburn, Secretary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission -70- MINUTES INDEX 71 • EXHIBIT "A" ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING TITLES 3 AND 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF TIME-SHARE PROJECTS WHEREAS, the City Council of Newport Beach has enacted a Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax Law (Municipal Code, Chapter 3.16); and WHEREAS, the City Council of Newport Beach has determined that the use and occupancy of "Time- Share" facilities shall be defined as transient occupancy within the meaning set forth in Section 3.16.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and • WHEREAS, time -share projects are a unique and increasingly popular form of land use in beach communities similar to Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, time -share projects have the character of commercial transient visitor facilities; and are therefore appropriately confined to areas where such facilities are permitted; and WHEREAS., the forms of occupancy and management of time -share projects present unique problems regarding transient dwellings, parking, traffic, building maintenance, use of City provided services, and sales activity; and WHEREAS, the General Plan of Newport Beach encourages the preservation of affordable rental dwellings for both long term residents and transient visitors; and WHEREAS, the conversion of dwelling units within the City to time -share projects eliminates dwellings otherwise available for rental in the City; and WHEREAS, the unique characteristics of time -share projects can have an adverse impact on immediately adjacent areas and the City as a whole; and WHEREAS, the regulation of time -share projects is necessary to ensure that the adverse impacts will not contribute to the blighting or downgrading of surrounding uses and interfere with the general health, safety, peace, and welfare of the public. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, does • ordain that the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: 7A SECTION 1. Section 3.16.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, irelating to definitions governing administration of the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax, hereby is amended to read as follows: 3.16.020 DEFINITIONS. Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this section shall govern the construction of this chapter: PERSON. The term "person" shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, joint stock company, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. HOTEL. The term "hotel" shall mean any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and • includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, time -share project or facility, rental unit, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structures or portion thereof. OCCUPANCY. The term "occupancy" shall mean the use or possession, or the right to use or possession of any room or rooms or portions thereof, in any hotel for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes. TIME SHARE OCCUPANCY. The term "time share occupancy" shall mean occupancy related to the situation wherein a purchaser receives the right or entitlement in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years or other extended term, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s), hotel, motel or portion thereof, or segment of real property, • annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy period into which the time -share project which is involved has been divided. The said right or entitlement to occupancy may attach in advance to a specific lot, parcel, unit, room(s), or portion of a hotel, or motel or segment of real property, or may involve designation or selection of the same at a future time or times. TRANSIENT. The term "transient" shall mean any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, • permit, right of access, license, time -share arrangement or ownership, or other agreement for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, -2- 73 counting portions of calendar days as full days. Any such person so occupying • space in a hotel shall be deemed to be a transient until the period of thirty (30) days has expired, unless there is an agreement in writing between the operator and the occupant providing for a longer period of occupancy. In determining whether a person is a transient, uninterrupted periods of time extending both prior and subsequent to the effective date of this chapter may be considered. RENT. The term "rent" shall mean the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a hotel valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom whatsoever. "Rent" may have been, or may be, payable prior to or following (in whole or in part) the occupancy to which it is attributable, and may have been paid in whole or in part in • advance on a long -term basis, such as in a "time- share" project or similar arrangement. OPERATOR. The term "operator" shall mean the person who is proprietor of the hotel, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity. Where the operator performs his functions through a managing agent of any type or character other than an employee, the managing agent shall also be deemed an operator for the purposes of this chapter and shall have the same duties and liabilities as his principal. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter by either the principal or the managing agent shall, however, be considered to be compliance by both. (Ord. 1255 1,1968: Ord. 1101, 1964: 1949 Code 6901). . SECTION 2. Section 3.16.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code relating to the tax imposed for transient occupancy uses is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.16.030 TAX IMPOSED. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of six percent (6 %) of the rent charged by the operator. The tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the City which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the City. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of • the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The -3- IM] • rA L L] • unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient's ceasing to occupy space in hotel. For purposes of this section, the rent deemed payable on account of time -share occupancy by a transient shall be the rental value of the unit or room(s) which accommodated such occupancy, which rental value shall be computed by determining the pro rata share of the total purchase price of the time -share right or entitlement, whether or not involving an estate or any ownership in real property which share is allocable to the period of transient occupancy currently involved, and adding thereto the total applicable operating costs including, but not limited to, the applicable real and personal property taxes, plus the total amount of any and all fees, assessments, charges and expenses (not including the previously referred to taxes) charged by the operator as attributable to the time -share occupancy of the transient by whatever name such fees, assessments, charges or expenses may be denominated, whether "occupying fee ", "maintenance or operations charge ", "per diem fee ", "management fee" or like name or otherwise. In making the computation referred to above the pro rata share of the total purchase price, in any case wherein the time -share right or entitlement is in perpetuity or for life or otherwise not for a definite or ascertainable term, such pro ration shall be made upon an assumed term of forty years. If for any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the Finance Director may require that such tax shall be paid directly to the Finance Director. (Ord. 1448 1, 1972: Ord. 1255 2, 1968; Ord. 1101, 1964: 1949 Code 6902). SECTION 3. Chapter 20.76 entitled Time -Share Developments is hereby added to the Newport Beach Municipal Code as follows: Sections: 20.76.005 Intent 20.76.010 Definitions 20.76.015 Use Permit Required 20.76.020 Conversions Prohibited 20.76.025 Fees 20.76.030 Application Contents 20.76.035 Development Standards 20.76.040 Modification or Waiver of Development Standards 20.76.045 Additional Requirements 20.76.050 Transient Occupancy Tax Applicable 20.76.055 Separability 20.76.005 INTENT. The City Council finds that time -share projects differ in many aspects from other transient visitor facilities in types of construction, forms of ownership, patterns of use and occupancy, and commercial management; and the City Council determines that the unique 75 features of time -share projects can have adverse affects on both the areas • surrounding such use and the whole of the City. Therefore, these regulations are adopted to guide the development and management of new time -share projects. It is the intent of these regulations to protect the general health, safety, peace, and welfare of the public and to provide a balanced mix between ownership and rental of transient visitor housing. 20.76.010 DEFINITIONS. The following terms used herein shall have the meanings indicated: TIME -SHARE PROJECT. The term "time -share project" shall be applied to any development wherein a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s) , or segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which • the project has been divided and shall include, but not limited to time -share estate, interval ownership, vacation license, vacation lease, club membership, time -share use, hotel /condominium, or uses of a similar nature. TIME-SHARE ESTATE. The term "time- share" estate" shall mean a right of occupancy in a time - share project that is coupled with an estate in the real property. TIME-SHARE USE. The term "time -share use" shall mean a license or contractual or membership right of occupancy in a time -share project that is not coupled with an estate in the real property. TIME-SHARE UNIT. The term "time -share unit" shall mean each portion of the real property or real property improvement in a project that is divided into time -share intervals. 0 TIME-SHARE INTERVAL. The term "time -share interval" shall mean the period or length of time of occupancy in a time -share unit. 20.76.015 USE PERMIT REQUIRED. Time -share projects may be permitted in the R -3, R -4, C -0, C -1, and C -2 Districts, and Specific Plan Areas (SP) and Planned Community Districts (P -C) where hotel or motel uses are permitted, subject to the requirement of a use permit for each development in each case. The procedures governing the issuance of such a use permit shall be those set • forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -5- 76 In addition, the approval of a tentative and final tract map or parcel • map may be required for all time -share projects in accordance with Title 19, Subdivision Code, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Subdivision or maps shall not be required until after a use permit has been approved, but such map and use permit may be processed concurrently. • 20.76.020 CONVERSIONS PROHIBITED. No dwelling unit as defined by Section 20.87.140, existing within the City as of the effective date of the ordinance and not previously part of a time -share project shall be converted to a time -share unit. Such prohibition extends to any dwelling unit contained in a hotel, motel, inn, tourist home or house, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or any other similar structure or portion thereof. 20.76.025 FEES. In addition to use permit and subdivision map fees, time -share applications shall be accompanied by fees established by resolution of the City Council for review of (a) organizational documents of the project submitted as part of the application package; and (b) copies of a substantially complete application to the California Department of Real Estate for a Final Subdivision Public Report as required in Section 20.76.030 of this chapter. 20.76.030 APPLICATION CONTENTS. In addition to the information required by Section 20.80.030 for a use permit and by Chapter 19 for subdivision maps, an applicant processing a time -share project shall submit • the following information: 1. Copies of documents and information required pursuant to 10 Cal. Adm. Code 2810 et. seq., wherein the requirements for a "substantially complete" application to the California Department of Real Estate for a final subdivision public report are enumerated. • 2. Description of time periods, types of units, which units are in the time -share program (if less than all), and the length of time each of the units are committed to the time share program. 77 0 • • • 3. A description of the means proposed to be employed to properly and effectively collect and remit to the City the Transient occupancy taxes which will become due and payable from time to time in the future. 20.76.035 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Time -share projects shall conform to the following: A. The project shall be consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan, particularly with regard to the balance and dispersion of visitor service facilities. B. The project shall comply with all applicable standard plans and specifications, adopted City and State Building Codes, and Zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. whenever regulations or restrictions imposed by this Section are either more or less restrictive than regulations or restrictions imposed by any other law, the regulations, restrictions or laws which are most restrictive, or which impose higher standards, shall govern. C. The project lot size shall conform to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval, but in no case shall a time -share project be approved on a lot of less than 15,000 square feet, regardless of when such lot was legally established. D. The project shall contain not less than fifty (50) time -share units. E. The project shall provide on -site parking spaces in the amount of not less than one and one -half (lei) spaces for each unit and one (1) additional space for each five (5) units, or fraction thereof. unit. F. The project shall provide separate kitchen facilities within each G. The project shall provide on -site laundry facilities. H. The project shall provide an enclosed refuse collection area suitable for large bin -type containers. 2. The project shall provide some form of on -site recreational facilities such as, but not limited to a spa, a swimming pool or tennis court. J. The project shall employ the use of advertising and identification signs only in accordance with Chapter 20.06, Sign Ordinance. K. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the project applied for shall not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental -7- 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. In making such determination, the Planning Commission, or City Council upon review or appeal, may consider the following: (1) The viability of the financial management plan as described in the documents submitted in accordance with Section 20.76.030. (2) The occupancy and ownership characteristics of the development including but not limited to provisions governing the term of time -share intervals, exchangeability of time -share intervals with other time -share developments, estate or use forms of time -share ownership, the useful life and term of ownership of the building(s), and the reversion of ownership upon completion of the useful life of the project. (3) The operation and management plan of the development including but not limited to provisions regarding cleaning and repair, on -site location of management personnel, and coordination of check -in and check -out procedures. 20.76.040 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The Planning Commission shall have the right to modify or waive any of the standards required by Section 20.76.035 if such modification or waiver will in no way be more detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements than will the strict compliance with these standards. 20.76.045 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. The Planning Commission shall • have the right to add additional conditions of . approval in order to insure compatibility of the development with the surrounding area and the goals and objectives of the General Plan of the City. 20.76.050 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX APPLICABLE. All time -share projects shall be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax, Chapter 3.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 20.76.055 SEPARABILITY.- If any provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be found invalid or unconstitutional in application or in 7R -� interpretation by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 28th day of June, 1982, and was adopted on the day of , 1982, by the following vote, to wit: \J ATTEST: 0 City Clerk 6 /22 /82 /JDH /pw E Ayes, Councilmen Noes, Councilmen Absent Councilmen Mayor S=