HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/1980COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEET NG MINUTES
Place: City Council Chambers l
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Date: June 19, 1980
IN City, of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL IH III
I INDEX
Present x x x x x `Commissioner Thomas was absent. C
Absent x
EX- .OFFICIO MEMBERS:
Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney
STAFF MEMBERS:
William.R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato
Rich.Edmonston, Traffic Engineer
Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator
Glenna Sutton, Secretary .
The approval of
Commission Meet
• postponed until
meeting of July
Motion
Ayes
Absent
0
the minutes of the Planning
ing of May 22, 1980, were
the regular Planni g Commission
10, 1980.
X Motion was made to continue AgendalItem Nos. 6
x Y x x x and 7, a Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 1941
x for an office - retail complex.on Mariners Mile to
the regular Planning Commission me ting of.Jul.y10
1980,as per the ._Staff's .request, ending
review of additional information tD be submitted
by the applicant.
Bequest to create th.ree parcels of land for
commercial development, and the acceptance of an
offsite parking agreement fo.r a pojtion of the
required parking spaces for the Bak of Newport
complex, and the acceptance of an. nvironmental
Document..
LOCATION:
-1-
Lot 148, ract No.. ' Ti
located a 745 Dover Dri e,
on the We terly.side;of
Dover Dri e, southerly
of 16th S reet.
nti.nua
on of.
nutes
22/80
sub-
GtV Of
ZONE:
APPLICANT:
'OWNER: :.
June 19, 1980
A -P -H
i
Bank of Newport,
Newport Bead}
Lawrence K. arvey, et al
M
Corona del r
MINUTES
ENGINEER: Robert Bein,IWillian Frost
& Associates Newport Beach
Staff recommended that the`Condit ons of Approval.
Nos. 3 and 5 be amended to incorp iead rate some of
the Planning Commission's concern at the last
meeting. Condition No. 3 should that "the
remaining sidewalk al.ong Dover Drilve be. completed
and a street apron be constructed prior to the
.issuance of a building permit.for any new con -
struction on the adjoining Bank ol Newport proper-
• ty ".. Condition No. 5 was .suggestc d to read that
"parcel #2 be used for landscaping, vehicular.
:access and offstreet` parking purposes only, and.,
that said requirements shall be' noted on the
parcel map In addition, the City Attorney's
office requested additional findings if the .
resubdivision were approved in co junction with
Parcel #2. Mr. Robert Burnham, Assistant City
Attorney, stated that a copy of the report had
been given to the applicant, and z discussion had
been held with the applicant and his . attorney,
Mr. Dennis Harwood, who had a report to.make.
The Public Hearing was opened.re arding this
item and Mr. Harwood, 550 Newport Center Drive,
iAttorney for the Bank of:Newport, appeared
before the Planning Commission an stated that a
parcel map was requ.ired.even if the parcel wer@ 0
a short term lease. He also stat d their con-
currence with the conditions as set forth in the
City Attorney's memo to the appli ant. He
advised there would be.no development on the
'crescent shaped, smaller, Parcel, No. 2, and that
it would be used for limited parl ing purposes
only. He also informed the Commission that a
• portion of this parcel would be u iliied to
- create additionaVdrive areas to facilitate
traffic flow to the Bank of Newpo t drive -up tel
facility.
-2 -
r.
MINUTES
June Ip, 1980
IS City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
Commis.sioner Beek posed a question, i.e., the
irregularly shaped .parcel, to which Mr. Harwood
replied that the parcel now occupied by the bank
is owned by the bank, and the srtaller, crescent
shaped parcel is on along termjlease.
In response to another question
Commissioner Beek, Mr. Harwood
recordation of the parcel map w
greater protection than an offs
agreement. He explained that a
ment is a license to use anothe
the recordation of a parcel map
in which a lease is being treat
tion for the continuing right t
posed by
replied that,the
uld insure
ite parking
parking agree -
parcel, whereas
is.a transaction
d in considera
use the parcel.
Mr. Burnham advised that (1) it would be difficul
to describe the area that is going to.be the
subject of the offsite parking agreement without
the parcel map; and (2) the ban must make cer-
tain improvements to the irregularly shaped parce
• so that they could continue to use it for parkinc
purposes. He expressed the feeling that the
creation of this irregularly sh ped parcel would
facilitate landscaping, and the expansion of the
access into the drive -up teller location should
be a condition to the approval f the map, since
it would alleviate the problem f traffic backinc
up on 16th Street.
In .response to a question posed by Commissioner
Beek, Mr. Harwood replied that the bank desired
to preserve the integri.ty of th adjoining parcel
and the issue of the offstreet arki -ng agreement
and the acquisition of the adjoining parcel coule
not be confused. He explained that the acquisi-
tion of the parcel itself would conform with a
long term existing use of the p rope.rty, as well
as to conform to the existing topography.
Paul Ruffing, 610 Newport Center Drive, appeared
before the Commission., and stated their intenti.or
of adding two additional lanes lo the existing
Bank of Newport drive -up teller facility,;thereb3
allowing for four lanes with storage space for
eighteen cars onsite. He also explained the.
• mechanics of drive -up teller wi dow activity.
-3-
1MISSIONERS
June 19, 1980
W City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
Motion
x
A motion was made that the.Resubdivision
No. 654
be approved subject to the following
findings and
conditions:
6. The offsit.e parking area adjoins
the Bank
FINDINGS
i
of Newport property and has been
utilized.by
1. That the map meets the requirements
of
the customers and employees o.
the bank
Title 19 of the Newport.Beach
Municipal Code,
since 1972.
all ordinances of the City, all
applicable
7. The offsite parking spaces .will
not create
general or specific plans and
the Planning.
undue traffic hazards in the surrounding
Commission is satisfied with the
plan of
area.
subdivision.
8. The applicant will maintain a
2'. That the propose.d'resubdi.vision
presents no .
problems from a planning standpoint.
area.
3. That the proposed development
is consistent
approved the
with the Land Use Element of the
General Plan
Proposed offsite parking,arr.arigeme.nt.
.
and is compatible with surrounding
land uses.
1p.. That there are special circums1tan.ce.s,for
4. The project will.not. have any
significant
the creation of the irregu.larly
shaped.
impact.
5.. The Police Department has indicated
that
they do not contemplate any problems.
6. The offsit.e parking area adjoins
the Bank
of Newport property and has been
utilized.by
the customers and employees o.
the bank
since 1972.
7. The offsite parking spaces .will
not create
undue traffic hazards in the surrounding
area.
8. The applicant will maintain a
long term
lease for the offsite parking
area.
9: The City Traffic Engineer has
approved the
Proposed offsite parking,arr.arigeme.nt.
.
1p.. That there are special circums1tan.ce.s,for
the creation of the irregu.larly
shaped.
parcel #2,. those being the to
g standinguse
of the property within the parcel
for parking
purposes and the location of that
parcelat
•
the foot of a slope such that
the area
benefits only the parcel presently
occupied
and owned by the Bank of Newport.
-4-
i
0
COMMISSIONERS
June 19, 1980
1
City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
i
ALL
INDEX
ll.. Thatthe exception is necessary
to preserve
a substantial property right
of the Bank of.
Newport.
12. That the granting of,the exception
will not
be detrimental to the public
welfare or
injurious, to property in the
vicinity.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. That a parcel map be filed.,
:2. That all improvements be con
trusted as
required by ordinance and th
Public Works
Department.
3. That the remaining sidewalk
along the Dover
Drive frontage be completed,
and a standard
drive apron be constructed, at
the southerly
drive prior to the issuance
of a building.
permit for any new construction.on
the
adjoining Bank of Newport.pr
perty.
4. That a standard .subdivision
agreement and
accompanying surety be provi.ded
to
guarantee the satisfactor
pletion of
the public improvements if it
is desired
to obtain Building Permits or
to record
the Parcel Map prior to completion
of the
public improvements.
5. That parcel #2 shall be utilized
for land-
scaping, vehicular access and
offstreet
parking. purposes only, and that
said requir
-
ment. shall be.noted on the Parcel
Map.
6. That an offsite parki,n,g, agreement
shall
be approved by the City Council
guarantee-
ing that a minimum of 9.parking
spaces,
shall be provided on Parcel.
No. 2 of this
application, for the duration
of the Bank
of Newport use on the property
(that, portio
of Lot 3, Tract No. 1125, located
on the
southwesterly corner of Dover
Drive and
16th Street).
-5-
June 19, 1980
CFO 9 Gtv of Newport Beach
7. That there be a document rec
factory to the.City.Attorney
Planning Director providing
access to Dover Drive and 16
common parking spaces ,for Pa
and 2 of this application an
existing Bank of Newport pro
MINUTES
rded satis-
and the
or the common
h Street and
cel Nos. 1
for the
erty.
8. Vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas
and drives shall be provided on the subject
property on a weekly basis.
9. The "project shall provide fo� the sorting
of recyclable material from ther solid
wastes.
10. The.applicant..shall expand tle existing Bank
tem #2
D�
sio
of Newport drive -up teller facility
so as
to accommodate four vehicular
lanes to
said facility. The driveway
on 16th
•
Street shall also be widened
the.four vehicular lanes as
to.accommodate
approved by
the City Traffic Engineer.
Commissioner Allen posed 'a question,
to which
William Laycock, Current Planning
Administrator,
replied that if the drive -up teller
facility
were.relocated in the future, it would
neces-
sarily come before the Planning Commission
for
a use permit, at,which time the situation
would
Motion
x
be reassessed.
Ayes
x
x
Y
x
Absent
x
Motion was CONDITIONALLY APPROVED.
Request to create two parcels of l
nd for commer-
cial development where one lot.now
exists, the
acceptance.of an offsite parking a
reement for a
portion of the required parking spices
for Kam's
Restaurant facility, and the accep
6 ance of an
Environment,al..Document.
LOCATION: Lot 2, Tract No. 10,174,
located at
2101 and 2121 East
Coast Highway,
on the southwesterly
East Coast Highway
corner of
and Avocado
Avenue, adjacent to
Irvine Terrace.
-6-
tem #2
D�
sio
COMMISSK)NERS
0
MINUTES
June 19, 1980
of Newport Beach
ZONE: C -1
APPLICANT: Bank of Newport, Newport Beach
OWNER: Realport Corporation,
Newport. Beach
ENGINEER: Robert Bein, Willia Frost &
Associates,.Newport Beach
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
McLaughlin, William Laycock, Current Planning.
Administrator, replied that the purpose of
the resubdivision was for financing purposes only,
and that no new construction was proposed.
The Public Hearing was opened and r. Harwood,
Attorney for the Bank of Newport, ppeared before
the Commission to state his concur ence with the
conditions as indicated in the St ff Repo.rt.
Ip response to a question posed by
M'cLaughlin,:Mr..Harwood replied th
quested the offstreet agreement to
the maximum term remaining under t
they do.not know what the future u
property will be.
Commissioner Allen suggested conti
so that Mr. Kam Yee might be notif
her understanding that the long -st
which. had now been resolved regard
Restaurant began over the fact tha
rant was never notified of the dev
door.
Motion x Commissioner Allen made a motion t
item to the regular Planning Commi
of July 10, 1980. Commissioner.Be
agreement.
In response to a comment made by C
Allen, Mr. Laycock replied that th
purpose,of notifying occupants or
aidjoining property had been in ref
residential lots, and not commerci
-7-
Commissioner
t they re-
coincide with
e lease, as
e of the
uing.this item
ed; she stated
nding dispute
ng Kam's
the restau
lopment next
continue this
ion Meeting
stated his
mmissioner
primary
enants of
rence to
1 areas.
4MISSIONERS
MINUTES
June 19, 1980
x
City Newport, of Beach
Commis.sioner.Hai.dinge.r made a S.ubsfitute
Motion .
INDEX
that the Planning Commission approve
Resubdivi -.
H'e. further explained that the requ
rement.of
vehicular and .pedestrian access between
the two
parcels would still exist.
and conditions:
•
Commissioner Allen stated.her understanding
that
FINDINGS:.
the offsite parking agreement involved
parking on
1. That the map meets the.requir
ments of Title
Kam's lot as well as on the Bank of
Newport lot.
19 of the Newport Beach Municipal
She expressed her feeling that it
as important
that Mr. Yee knew where his offsit
parking would
gen-
exit and that he knew there was a
ew lot, and
eral or specific.plans and the
Planning .
t:hat.it wo.uld in.no way affect his
offsite . parkin
Commission is satisfied with
the plan of
agreement.
Motion
x
Commis.sioner.Hai.dinge.r made a S.ubsfitute
Motion .
that the Planning Commission approve
Resubdivi -.
sion No. 659, subjct to the following
findings
and conditions:
•
FINDINGS:.
1. That the map meets the.requir
ments of Title
19 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code, all
ordinances of the City, all applicable
gen-
eral or specific.plans and the
Planning .
Commission is satisfied with
the plan of
subdivision.
2. That the proposed resubdivi.si
n presents no
problems from a planning Stan
point.
3. That the proposed development
is consistent
with the Land Use Element of
he General Pla
and is compatible with surrou
iding,.land
uses.
4. The project will not have any
significant
environmental impact.
5. The offsite parking area adj
ins Kam's
Restaurant facility, and the
efore, is
so located to be useful.to th
subject.
res.taurant use.
6. The offsite parking spaces will
not create
•
undue traffic.hazards in the
urrounding
area.
_g-
COMMISSIONERS
HIS
17j
E
MINUTES
'ItV of
June 19, 1980
T o
7. The.offsite parking lot and t e adjoining
restaurant site will be maintained under
the same ownership.
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 the applicable conditions of Use
Permit No. 1857 and Tract No. 10274 be
fulfilled_
4. That two (2) feet of ri.ght -of way shall be
dedicated for pedestrian purp ses along
East Coast Highway, where tre
wells exist,
so that an 8 foot clear sidew
lk can be
constructed. The locations a
d configuratio
of the dedication shall be ap
roved.by the
Public Works Department.
5.
That approximately 10 feet of
I
deteriorated
curb and 20 feet of deteriorated
sidewalk
and gutter be reconstructed on
Avocado
Avenue.
6.
That the displaced sidewalk a
o.ng East
Coast Highway be replaced adj
cent to
Parcel No. 2,.with locations
o be..a.ppr.oved
by the Public Works Departmen
.
7.
.That: all work within the East
Coast
Highway right -of -way be done
inder an
encroachment permit issued by.the.Cali-
forgia Department of Transportation.
S.
That a standard agreement wit
accompanying
surety be provided to guarant
a the sa.tis-
- factory completion of the improvements
if
it is desired to record the p
rcel map.
before completing the public
improvements.
-9-
•
Motion
Ayes
Nos
Absent
Ayes
Nos
Absent
0
June 19, 1980
ON of Newport Beach
9:. That an offsite parking agree
approved by the City Council
that a minimum of 42 parking
be provided on Parcel No. 1 0
cation, for the duration of t
use on Parcel No. 2.
ent shall be
uara.nteeingg
paces shall
this appli-
e restaurant
MINUTES
10. That there be a document recorded satis-
factory to the City Attorney. and the Plannin
Director providing for the common access
between Parcel Nos. 1 and 2 of this appli-
cation, and to East Coast Hig way and
Avocado Avenue.
1'1. Vacuum sweeping of all paved )asking areas
and drives shall be provided n the subject
property on a weekly basis.
12. The proposed bank structure s all provide
for the sorting of recyclable material
from other solid wastes.
x A second Substitute Motion was mad by Commission
x x ar Beek that this item be continuep to the regula
x Planning Commission Meeting of Jul 10, 1980;
X1 which Motion failed.
x x x The previous Substitute Motion was1then voted on_,
which MOTION CARRIED.
The Planning.Commission recessed at 9:45 p.m.,
and reconvened at 9:55 p.m.
Request to consider a Traffic Phasing Plan for
the remaining development of the Corporate
Pla.za Planned Community, and the acceptance of
an Environmental Document (Continued Public
Hearing).
-10-
Item #3
Traffic
Phasing
Plan
Corpora
Plaza
Continu
Fri,
U
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
June l9, 1980
City of
Beach
LOCATION: Property bounded by East Coast
Highway, Newport'Ce ter Drive,
Farallon Drive and vocado Avenue
in Newport Center.
ZONE: P -C
APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as Applicant
Fred Talarico, Environmental Coord nator, opened
the discussions with a correction o Exhibit "A"
Lindings.and`Conditions. He indi'c ted that Table
#5 should be corrected to read Tab a #4, March 3,
1980 in Condition No. 1. Con.diti.o No. 25 should
be changed .to.;read "That a radius:. orner cut -off
be dedicated at the northwesterly orner of ,
Newport Center Drive and Coast Hig way in.accord-
ance with the requirements.of the ublic Works
Department."
The Public Hearing was opened reg
item, and Mr. Ron.Hende.r.ickso.n, T.h
Company, statDd that said corner ha
developed and landscaped and asked
radius was required. This.questio
further researched by the Public W
went
arding this'
e Irvine
d already.been
why a new
n was to be
Drks Depart-
Commissioner Beek posed a question to which
Mr. Henderickson replied that the rvine Company
was willing to cooperate with the ublic Works
Department to provide the land :for the radius
corner cut -off.
In response to a question posed by
Balalis,.in conjuction with impro.v
Avocado Avenue, Rich Edmonston,.Tr
teplied.that this street would eve
part of a one -way, couplet with Mac
Boulevard,which would be three lan
lanes all in.a southerly direction
that at this.time it was not feasi
ment the couplet; that
Avocado Avenue,wouTd have to act a
facility, until the couplet,was c_om
-11-
Commissioner
men.ts.on
f.fi c Engineer,
tually.be
,rthur
rs plus turning
. He added
,le to imple-
iortion of
a two-way,_
leted.
U
June 19, 1980 MINUTES
of Newport Beach
INDEX
Fried Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, then
explained that with the approval of the Corporate
Plaza Project, there were certain improvements
to! be made on Avocado Avenue from San Nicolas
southerly to Farralon,.and that the intent was to
continue those improvements from Fat ralon down to
Coast Highway, including any improvements neces-
sitated above that point for Farral n. He con-
cluded that at such time as the d velopment of
the Newport Village property occurr d, the
remainder of the street would be im roved.
Commissioner Balalis expressed his oncern that
only half a street system would be created at
this time.
Ron Henderickson, The Irvine Company, stated that
the Corporate Plaza development as rroposed was
350,000 .square feet, and that this evelopment
was an existing P -C. He explained. that the re-
maining undeveloped portion was 101,150 square
feet, the phasing for which they we a now request-
ing permission to disclose. He further explained
that there would be two. intersectio s of the
sixteen or so analyzed that would bE affected by
this project; that is, Bristol Nortk and Jamboree,
and MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills Road. In the
case of the Bristol- Jamboree intersection, they
concurred with the recommendations in the Staff
Report. In the case of the latter, they believed
allowing southbound traffic on MacA thur to make
a right turn into Newport Center wo ld relieve.
the traffic situation at peak hours
Al :though Mr. Henderickson expressed concurrence
wi -th most.of the conditions in the Staff Report,
he did express concern regarding Condition #26,
stating that this intersection (i.e Coast Highway
an!d Jamboree) was not one affected ty the project.
He expressed the feeling that The I vine Company
should not be requi.red to mitigate this inter-
se I ction as the cost of doing so would be tetween
one -half and three - quarters of a.mi lion dollars.
Mr. Edmonston then stated that this would include.
• the additional widening on the nort side of Coast
Highway and the Staff had discussed the matter
with The Irvine Company. Prelimina lostponed y indications
were that such dedication might be until
-12-
CALL
'y V IIJJIWI `1LIW
June 19, .1980
s
City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
such time as the leases on two service station
sites expired, so that there was no difficulty
between The Irvine Company and the people leasin
the sites.
Commissioner Balalis posed a question to which.
Mr. Edmonston replied that an additi.onal thirty
foot right -of -way would be required all along
the inland side of Coast Highway to widen it to
the ultimate six lane configuration. The City
Was in the process of selecting a consultant to
do the EIR for that project. The hope was that
in approximately two years, they might be in the
construction stage for the first portion from
MacArthur Boulevard'through to the Jamboree
Road area. He also concluded that the acquisitio
of these sites does not appear to be possible
during this time period from any other means.
Mr. Henderickson pointed out that what was being
asked by the City (i.e. 300 feet of dedication
easterly of the intersection, and 200 feet west-
erly of Jamboree) didn'.t really affect the
intersection. He was of.the opinion that there
Was no problem in the City's.acquisition of the
right -of -way, and also, he felt that the conditio
of approval should not be tied to this project.
Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated
that this-question had come up before, and that
he did not believe that there was a readily
available legal answer, as the.traffic phasing
plan did not exist in any other city. Therefore,
there had not.been any litigation concerning the
legality of both the plan and any contributions,
etc., that may be required by a.municipality..
To his knowledge, The Irvine Company had not pre-
sented any indication of having such material: at
either his office or the Commission. He explaine
that they were dealing:with a special ordinance
to the City unrelated to subdivisions, as well.
As a situation that impacts on this intersection
by virtue of this development. If the Commission
wishes, -it may be time for the City Attorney's
office and The Irvine Company's legal staff to
study which conditions were valid. Since this
• traffic phasing ordinance was valid, he believed
that the requirements were also valid.
-13-
. MINUTES
j dune 19, 1980
City of Newport Beach
Chairman Balalis then stated that ie would
rather continue this item for a feti weeks to
explore why the understanding reac ed earlier by
both parties was now being misunderstood.
Mr. Henderickson stated he had just received .a
copy of .the Staff Report, and that his staff.'
had discussed it with Rich Edmonst n. However,
the commitment of land in this agg egate amount
dollarw.ise required higher approval within.The
Irvine Company. He further statedlthat he be-
leived that the City would have no
acquiring the land, but he did feel it was a
matter of equity. He stated that The Irvine
Company,had agreed to.provide funds for the
city's transportation fund, and for remote
improvements on new projects. Therefore, he
did not feel that the request wa in. agreement
with past actions. of the Planning ,ommission.
Chairman Balalis then pointed out t hat a traffic
• problem existed in the City, and at we were
trying to solve it together, a poiot.to which
Mr. Henderickson agreed.
Chairman Balalis then reiterated iis feeling .
that a continuance was in order since there
seemed to be an impasse. Commissioner
Haidinger agreed, and added that ie didn't feel
the Commission should get lost in a lot of
technicalities and bypass the real issue.
Chairman Balalis responded that.al hough he
agreed, he felt the issues were re,a.ted since
there was enough traffic generated on Coast
Highway that would impact this intersection,, and
which is one of the reasons, for the proposed
widening of the highway. Commi.ssi ner Beek also
concurred that The Irvine Company J.evelopments
Impact very heavily on this inters ction, and
Nye felt i.t was appropriate that t is project
contribute to widening Coast Highway. He also
pointed out to Mr. Henderickson, t at although
a higher level of approval in their company was
required, he and other members of the 'Commission
had been reading in the newspapers that the
president of The Irvine Company haJ offered
-14-
COMMISSIONERS
June 19, 1980
City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL
INDEX
$17,000,000 to improve circulation
systems in
the City of Newport Beach. He co
tinued.by
saying that the City was not aski
g for cash,
but rather a pie.ce of land at an intersection
that was being impacted by The Irvine
Company'
development. Mr. Hendrickson ther
reiterated
that he did not believe. the improvement
of the
Jamboree /Coast Highway intersection
was the .
issue. He also stated that they had
two long
term leases on each of the afore
entioned
parcels and he did not belive the
lease terms
were up until 1,983; therefore, he
wanted to be
sure that they were in the clear before
any
agreement was made to give the lard
to the City.
He also protested the continuance,
since there
ad already been one continuance.
Chairman Balalis. commented that t
problem existing, that of a major
The Irvine Company does not accep
was that.th.e Commission needed 'a
• from the Staff prior to voting, a
there was no alternative but to a
week continuance.
ere is a
condition whit
His feeling
ecommendation
d therefore,
k for a two
Motion A motion was then made by Commissioner McLaughlin
Ayes x x x for continuance of this i t to t e regular
Abstain, x !Planning Commission meeting of 7- 10 -80.
Absent x
MOTION WAS CARRIED.
Request to change the operationa characteristi
of the .existing Coco's Restaurant facility in
Corona del Mar to include the ser ice of beer
:and wine.
LOCATION:. Lot 1, B1ock.A; Traci No. 470,'
located at 2305. East. Coast Highway,
on.the southeasterly corner of
East Coas.t Highway a d Acacia
Avenue in Corona del Mar.
i
ZONE: C -1
• APPLICANT: Far West Services,.I c.,
Newport Beach
OWNER: Martin A. Mangold, C rona del Mar
-15-
Item #4
VoT�. 1942
ppA rov�Ce
Cond i ti on
a—TTy
i
COMMISSIONERS June 19, 1980 MINUTES
•
1111111 City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL IINDE7
Th,e issue of additional parking spices was
raised by Commissioner McLaughlin, and it was
explained by William Laycock, Curre t Planning
Administrator, that Mr. Mangold; th owner
of, the restaurant site also owned t e parking .
lot across Acacia Avenue from Coco 's Restaurant.
He further stated that if the Planning Commission
desired to require the parking spaces across the
street for this use permit applicat on for the
on -sale beer and wine, that an off- ite parking
agreement should be approved. Clarification was
made that should the off -site parking spaces be
approved, the owner would not be able to use 12
of said parking spaces along the southerly
boundary of the parking area, inasm ch as the.
subject parking spaces were under s parate owner -
shiip and not available to the resta rant facility.
In response to a query by Commissio er McLaughlin,
Mr. Laycock stated his understandin was that the
• parking lot owned by Mr. Mangold wa :being used by
most of the commercial stores in th area, and
that he did not know what kind of leasing arrange-
ment the applicant had for that par icular lot.
In response to a question of Commissioner
Haidinger as to why Staff wa.s satis ied with only
23iparking spaces for Coco's Restaurant when all
standards indicated more were neces a.ry,
Mrj. Laycock explained that this.was all of the
existing parking space available for the restau-
rant use, and in the past, the Pla ning Commis-
sion had approved on -sale beer and wine for
restaurants in similar situations.
Commi,s.sioner Beek stated that he re ognized that
the Commission would be app.rovin this permit
with less than the necessary parkinZ spaces
because of the.existing conditions and he had
noiobjection to doing so. However; he did not
want to further the extent of the randfathering"
byan.inadequate,use of it. He fell that since a
Specific Area Plan for Corona del M r was not
yet prepared, but was due soon, tha the
• 11111111 -167
N City of
June'19, 1980
Beach
MINUTES
• 11111111
Commission. may desire to clear out
some of the
"grandfather" nonconforming uses.
In response to a suggestion by Chairan
Balalis
that a time limit be put on the perm
i t,
Mr. Burnham stated.he didn't feel
the issuance
of the use permit would make it difficult
for
the City to restrict or make the u
e nonconform-
ing in the future.
The Public Hearing was opened, an
a representa-
tive for Far West Services, the ap
licant,
explained that the acquisition of
he beer and
Wine license.was done to accommoda
a their curren
customers and not to increase.traf
is flow in the
area. He explained that this Coco
's Restaurant
use was their first operation whic
began 35
years ago, and that it was the las
restaurant
facility to have beer and wine.; th
y would
like to standardize, and they do n
t feel it-.
Would increase the parking problemj.
i
Motion
x
A motion for approval of Use Permit
No. 1942
Ayes
XK
X
X
X
Y
was made, subject to the foll.owing
findings and
Absent
X
conditions
FINDLNGS:
1 That the continued harmony existing
between
Coco's Restaurant and neighbo
ih.g resi=
dential and commercial land u
es is extremly
dependent on the availability
of offstreet
parking.
2. That the proposed use is consistent
with the
Land.Use Element of the General
Plan and is
compatible with surrounding land
uses.
3. The project will not have any
significant
environmental impact.
4. The Police Department has indicated
that
they do, not contemplate any 'p
oblems.
• 11111111
CC><vIMISSiONERS
If
June 19, 1980
City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL
INDEX
5. The offsite parking lot is d
rectly across
Acacia Avenue from the restaurant
site,
and therefore, is so located
o be useful
to.the proposed development.
6. The.,offsite parking spaces w
11 not create
undue traffic hazards in the,
urrounding
areas.
7. The restaurant site and the
ffsite parking
lot are in the same ownership
8. The approval of Use Permit No
1942 will not,
.under the circumstances of.th
s case, be
detrimental to the health, sa
ety, peace,
morals, comfort and general w
lfare of
persons residing and working
n the.neigh-
borhood or be detrimental or
njurious to
property or improvements in t
e neighborhood
or the general welfare of the
City.
•
CONDITIONS
i
1. That an offsite parking agre�ment
shall be
approved by the City Council,
guaranteeing
that a minimum of 23 parking
paces shall be..
provided on Lot Nos. 5 and 6,
rract No. 682,
for the duration of the subje
t restaurant
facility located at 2305 East
Coast Highway.
2. The development shall be in
3ubs.tantial
conformance with the approved
plot plan and
floor plan.
3. That all improvements be constructed
as
required by Ordinance and.theIPublic
Works
Department.
4. That a 10 foot radius corner
cutoff at the
southeast corner 6f-Acacia Av
nue and East
Coast Highway shall be dedicated
to the
public.
5. That approximately 300 square
feet of tree
damaged sidewalk be reconstru
ted on the
•
southeast corner of East Coast
Highway and
-18-
LJ
Motion
n
LJ
WISSIONERS MINUTES
June 19,.1980
it v of Newport Beach
Acacia Avenue and that the existing tree
be root pruned or replaced as ap.prowed by
the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
6. That arrangements be made with the Publi:c
Works Department to guarantee the satis-
factory completion of required improvements
7. That the restaurant.facility shall be
limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to
11.00 p.,m.
Request to consider an amendment
the Newport Beach Municipal Code
to amending the expiration dates
variances, site plan review, and
applications, and the acceptance
mental Document.
to Title 20 of Item #5
as. it pertains
for use permit, Amendment
modification No. 547
of an Envir,on-
APPROVED
INITIATED BY: The.City of Newport Beach
The Public Hearing was opened in. conjunction
with this item. There being no one wishing to
be heard, the hearing was closed.
x A motion to approve was then made by Commissioner
Haidinger.
Commissioner Beek raised the following questions
concerning the provision in the Code that the .
City Council had sixty days after receipt of .
the petition from the Planning Commission in
which to act: What was the point in the Code
telling City Council how fast to act when they
were the ones that write the code ?;.Did this
really have.any effect, and what happened if
they didn't obey? This refers to .page 3 of the
Staff Report under Hearings, item #2, and also
to page 6, Hearing Time.
.Current Planning Administrator La cock replied
that this particular section was already included
on page 4, Permits, and that the Same wording was
being added to other sections of the Code for
consistency.
-19-
COMMISSIONERS
June 19, 1980
C City of NeWDOrt Beach
Assistant City Attorney Burnham ,w
to.answer the questions, and he
City.Council failed to act within
period, they would probably have
hearing. He believed the provisi
Code to provide due process to th
the particular approval so that t
act within a stipulated period of
opposed to leaving it in a state
person had no recourse unless the
made final.within a particular pe
The City could fail to act in ac
own laws, and if it did., it was g
to some sort of penalty, court a
Commissioner Beek then posed the
the applicant did not get automat
must he then sue the City?
Assistant City Attorney Burnham a
..
thought what was meant was that a
sixty days., the applicant.had leg
go into a court of law and say th
acting in accord with their own p
get a Writ of Mandate directing t
Ayes
K
x
x
x
x
A vote was then taken, and the MO
Nos
x
.
Absent
x
MINUTES
then.requeste
plied that if
he sixty day
redo the
was in the
person holding
Council would
ime, as
limbo. A
ecision were
od'of time,
rd with its
erally subject
ion, etc.
stion that if
approval.,
wered that he
the end of the
recourse to
City was
cedures and
City to act.
ON CARRIED.
Request to consider a Traffic StudlY fora pro-
posed 24,000 sq. ft. ± office- retail. building..
AND
Request to permit the constructio
story retail - office complex in th
Mile Specific Plan Area that exce
height limit within the 26/3.5 Foo
Limitation District, and the acc
Environmental Document. The appr
permit is also required inasmuch .
exceeds the 0.5 times the buildab
site.
. -20-
of a three
Mariner's
s the basic
Height
tance of an
al of a use
the project
area of the
Item #6
Traffic
Study
and
Item #7
Motion
Ayes
Absent
•
E
itv of
J.une.19, 1980
t Beach
MINUTES
I
LOCATION:. A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919,
located at 2912 We ;t Coast
Highway, on the nor he .. ly side of
West Coast Highway; westerly of
Riverside Avenue.
ZONE: SP -5
APPLICANT: F. Earl Mellott, A. .A., Anaheim
OWNER: Said Shokrian, Newp rt Beach
x 1 t x x Motion was made that these items be continued
x x to the regular Planning Commissioi meeting of
x 7- 10 -80, as per the Staff's reque t, pending
review of additional information t be submitted
by the applicant.
Request to set for public hearing n amendment Item. #8
to the Land Use and Residential G owth Elements
of the Newport Beach general Plan 'n.the County Gen.. P1
Triangle area. mendme
Nn_ 80-
INITIATED BY: City of Newp
Commissioner Allen.complimented Cr
the other members of the Staff who
this development alternative chart
that it was a very comprehensive r
to read., Fred Talarico, Ehvironme
tor, then explained the background
this was:Phase I of..a Staff Repor
include more information, which wo
for the July meeting. The Staff w
some environmental analysis, as we
analysis, of each of the alternati
further stated that if anyone had
opinion on the alternatives, it w
appropriate to add those at this t
-21-
Beach
ig Bluell and.
put .together
r. She stated
port and easy
tal Coord;ina-
adding that
that.would
ld be prepared
uld be doing
l as traffic
es. He
ny comment or
uld be..
r
i i
1111fig
Motion I I x
Ayes X Ix X
Absent 1XI
Motion x
Ayes x x x x
Absent x
June 19, 1980
of Newport
Chairman Balalis suggested that ev,
affected area be noticed, and in r
Commissioner Bee,k's question.as to
suggested a mailing, as well as n
the trailer park association mana
other property owner association.s
It was also suggested that lists
voters, landowners and people who
attending. Planning Commission meet
an aid. There was also the possi
newspaper advertising.. Commission
the suggestion of hanging notices
and this method would be checked,t
were economically feasible. It wa
the Commission that the Staff woul
to make notification.
MINUTES
ryone in the
sponse to
how,. he
ti.fication.of
ement and
n the. area.
f registered
ad been
ngs would be
iIi.ty of
r Beek made
n door knobs,
see if it
.agreed by
decide how
Chairman Balalis made a motion forla special
Public Hearing to be conducted on Puly 24, 1980.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
William Laycock, Current Planning
stated that at its meeting of June
the City Council authorized mailin
to owners and residents of propert
permits, variances, tentative trac
within a prescribed radius, over a
property owners' that are now not
therefore recommended that the Pla
sion consider an amendment to.Titl
of the Municipal Code at its me.eti
to consider the mailing of public
variances, use permits, zone chang
other applications to occupants an
property within a prescribed dist
Motion was.made by Commissioner Mc
MOTION CARRIED
_P2-
dministrator,
9, 1980,
of notices
for use
s, etc., .
d above.the
fied. He
ning Commi.s-
19 and 20
g of 7 -24 -80
otices for.
s and similar
residents of
nce.
aughlin.
COMMISSIONERS
June 19;.1980.
City of New ort Beach
P
MINUTES
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Motion
K
Motion was.made that Commissioner
Coka.s be
Aes
x
x
x
x
dismissed from the regular Planning
Commission
Absent
x
meeting of 7- 10 -80.
There being no further business the
Planning
Adjourn-
Commission adjourned at 9;45 p.m.
ment.
DEBRA ALLEN,
Secretary
Planning Co
mission
City of New
ort Beach
M11111111