The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/09/1981I Wj REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. Date: July 9, 1981 M] Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX 0 xIx All present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney F William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Craig Bluell, Senior Planner . Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary 0 11111111 -1- ELECTION OF OFFICERS OFFICERS ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN: Motion X Motion was made to nominate Commissioner Mck' Laughlin. Motion X Motion was made to nominate Commissioner King. Commissioner McLaughlin was elected Chairman. by secret ballot, which MOTION CARRIED. FIRST VICE- CHAIRMAN: Motion X Motion was made to nominate Commissioner King, All Ayes X X X X YX X which MOTION CARRIED. SECOND VICE CHAIRMAN: Motion x Motion was made to nominate Commissioner Allen, All Ayes X X X X YX X which MOTION CARRIED. 0 11111111 -1- ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion Ayes Abstain Motion Ayes Abstain Motion Ayes Noes 0 July 9, 1981 City of Newport Beach CALL SECRETARY: 1motion was made to nominate Commissioner Win - X Y XX X X burn, which MOTION CARRIED. X MINUTES Chairman McLaughlin made a special presentation to past Planning Commission Chairmans, Jackie Heather and Paul Bala.lis, in which they received a personalized gavel. INDEX APPROV.AL.OF'THE:.MINUTES APPROVAL OF THE X Motion was made.to approve the Minutes of the MINUTES X Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, X 1981, as written, which MOTION CARRIED. Staff advised that the applicant for Item No. 17 Use Permit No. 2007, has withdrawn this item. Staff further advised that the Commission may wish to move Item No. 12 - the Housing Element, to the first item on the agenda. X Motion was made . to move Item No. 12 - the Housing X X Element: to Item:,.No,. 1. on-the Agenda, whi.ch::MOTION X CARRIED. HOUSING General Plan Amendment 81 =1 (H) ELEMENT Proposed revisions to the Housing Element of the. Newport Beach General Plan. Continued INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach to July 23, 1981 P)ann.i,ng Director Hewicker discussed the back- ground information related to this item. -2- July 9, 1981 MINUTES i i I 1 .1 il City of Newport Beach INDEX Motion Mr. Ward Connerly, the City's Housing Consultant, stated that the Housing Element as written, is fiscally and environmentally sound and.complies with the State law. He also stated that the Housing Element responds to the needs of the community. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the new Commission members would be eligible to vote on this item. Commissioner King stated that the Housing Element will give the City Council the latitude to ac- commodate the placement of housing for all segments of the community. Motion was made to accept the Housing Element as written and as forwarded to HCD by the City Council. Commissioner Beek stated that the Commission has . adopted a series of amendments relating to the Hous.ing.Element that must be considered. He stated that constructive steps must be taken to alleviate the serious housing problem. Commissioner Allen referred to the condominium conversion statements located in Sections IV -14 and IV -19 and stated that these sections must be reviewed. She stated that the difference is in how.aggressive the City will become involved in this matter. Mr. Connerly concurred with.Commissioner Allen's concern and stated that possibly the phrase, "the. City shall facilitate" needs to be re -ex- amined: He stated that possibly. the City `should take a more passive role on this issue. Mr. Connerly reiterated that the City has made a good faith effort to respond to the needs of the community. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Ward if he has any objections to the amendments that were made i IIIIIIII -3 July 9, 1981 Citv of Newport Beach MINUTES E ROLLCALLI 111 1111 1 INDEX by the Commission on June 4,. 1981. Mr. Connerly stated tha.t the Commission's strategy should be to examine certain. issues, such as negotiated development and the Block Grant Program, which were deleted by the Commission amendments of June 4, 1981. Commissioner Thomas stated that perhaps the- Com-mission should deal with these issues on an item by item basis. ubstitute Substitute motion was made to reopen the Housing Motion Element and review the issues of density in- creases on the vacant parcels, us.e of federal funds, specifically the Community Development Block Grant Funds, and the tax supported sub sidies through mortgage revenue bonds, including resale controls and how these will be handled. Commissioner Balal.is stated that the City should • have available to it all of the items that have been discussed in the Housing Element. Therefor he stated that he would support Commissioner King's motion with the suggestion to modify the conversion of the four dwelling units. Commissioner Allen expressed her concern on the mortgage revenue bond program. Commissioner Thomas stated that additional information is needed on this issue. Commissioner Beek stated that the Housing Element document needs "more public input. Planning Director Hewicker stated that there will be additional public hearings on this matter. Commissioner Allen referred to Section TV -14, second paragraph, and asked what the 3% - 5% assessment will be ,assessing. Mr. Connerly_ stated that the 3% - 5% will be a surcharge on the value of the permit. He stated.that the percentage can be changed, but that the emphasis should be placed on "exploring the feasib'i.lity Oft,. • 11111111 -4- i /1NSSIUARS July 9, 1981 City of Newport Beach Ayes X X Substitute Motion by Commissioner Thomas was now Noes X X voted on, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED. MINUTES Amendment X Commissioner Thomas referred to V -4, paragraph 3 on Page 8 of the staff report, and amended the original motion to include the language of the Acceptance X environmental considerations. Commissioner King stated, that he would accept.this as an amendment to his motion. Suggested Commissioner Thomas referred.to V -7, paragraph Amendment X 3 and 4 on Page 9 of. the staff report, and re- quested an amendment to the motion to include this into the document. Commissioner King stated that he would not accept this as an amendment in that this would be deleting an alternative that the.City may ultimately need. Mr. Connerly concurred.. Substitute Substitute.motion was ma.de to make the same re- M ion X commendations.to the City Council.that were made . on the Housing Element when it was forwarded to them, with the understanding that the Commission intends to study the various sections after the comments have.been received from HCD. • 11111111 -5- Commissioner Beek .stated that he would not be supporting the substitute motion because it would leave too little time for the Commission to re- ceive any public input or do to any constructive work. Ayes X X X Commissioner Allen's substitute motion was now Noes X X X voted on, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED. Ayes X X Commissioner Thomas. requested that his suggested Noes X X X X amendment to V -7,. paragraph 3 and 4 be voted on, . which AMENDMENT FAILED.. Ayes X X X X Commissioner.King's original motion to accept Noes X X the Housing Element.as written and as forwarded to HCD by the City Council and as amended by Commissioner Thomas on V -4, paragraph 3, was now voted on, which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED. • 11111111 -5- Motion All Ayes • July 9, 1981 m MINUTES r X Motion was made to ha.ve a spec.ial study session X X XK X X on the Housing Element, which MOTION CARRIED. (See Page 51 for additional action). Request to consider a Traffic Study for a pro - pose.d 25,000 sq. ft. ±:medical office.building. AND Request to permit the construction of a 32 foot high medical office condominium complex and re- lated off- street parking spaces in the Un- classified District and the acceptance of an Envi.ronmental Document. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested to permit a portion of the required parking.spaces to be compact spaces. AND Request to create one parcel.of land for medical office condominium purposes. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 715, First Addition to the Newport Mesa Tract, located at 1511 and 1525 Superior Avenue, on the northwest -, erly side of Superior Avenue be- tween 15th Street and 16th Street in the West Newport Triangle. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANTS: W. Ross Mollard and William R. Wood Irvine OWNERS: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Raab Engineering, Westminster Agenda Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were heard concur - rently due to their relationshi.p. • 11111111 -6- F AND AND RESUB- July 9, 1981 City of MINUTES INDEX The public hearing items and Mr. Ross owner, explained to requests. opened in connection with then Mollard, the applicant and the Commission the proposed Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Planning Department has not, as yet, obtained the new traffic data that was utilized to sub- stantiate the memo from the Traffic Engineer. dated July 9, 1981. He then explained the traffic studies which were utilized for this project. In .response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental.Coordin- ator, explained the procedure of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mr. Talarico also explained. . that the.Traffic Engineer has physically counted the .trip generation rates for a medical office facility in the area. . Mr. Makbar Saloma,.representing Newport Crest Homeowners Association,. expressed concern for the trip generation figures which.are being utilized. He added that the figures being used for a comparison, vary in the amount of vehicular exits. He also questioned the number of proposed offices and the number of personnel for the proposed development and stated that this will affect the.amount of traffic generated. He added that a serious traffic situation is already existing in this area of Newport Beach. Mr. Mollard stated that the medical facility used in the traffic count is similar to the proposed development, which includes two vehi= cular exits and.a similar amount of net area. Commissioner Allen stated tha.t she would like to review the new traffic figures and suggested that these items be continued for two weeks. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen,.Mr: Talarico stated that the Traffic • 11111111 -7 4MISSIONERS . July 9, 1981 MINUTES cc I City of Newport Beach Study also included directional counts. Commissioner Allen concluded that there are three areas, of concern which include: changes in the assumptions, including the building itself changes in the trip generation rate; and, changes in the traffic distribution. Commissioner Beek stated.that there are several projects proposed in this area.which will impact the traffic and the intersection and suggested that the developers share the costs for the road improvements. Motion X Motion was made .to approve the Traffic Study. Substitute Substitute motion was made to continue Item Nos. Motion X 1, 2 and.3 to the meeting of July 23, 1981, in Ayes X X X X order to review the Traffic Study conducted by Noes X X Y the City Engineer, which SUBSTITUTE.MOTION CARRIED. • The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Request to consider a traffic study for a pro- posed 110,000 sq. ft. ± office- laboratory addition to the Hughes Aircraft Company facili- ties. AND Request to permit the construction of an office - laboratory addition and related parking struc- ture (with automobile parking on the roof) that exceed the basic height limit within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District, and the accep- tance of an Environmental Document. A modifica- • 11111111 _6- INDEX Fa AND COMMISSIONERS g Milk :3 i July 9, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach LL CALL INDEX tion to the Zoning Code is also requested, since a portion of the required o.ff- street parking spaces are compact spaces. BOTH LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2, APPROVED Irvine's Subdivision, located at CONDI- 500 Superior. Avenue, on the south- TIONALLY easterly side of Superior Avenue between Dana Road and Industrial Way adjacent to the West Newport Triangle. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: RMA Architectural Groups, Inc. I OWNER: Hughes Aircraft Co., Newport Beach Agenda Item Nos. 4 and 5 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. • The public hearing opened in connection with thes items and Mr. Scott Walker, representing Hughes Aircraft Company, stated that they concur with the staff. recommendations. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Walker if they woul stipulate to a pretreatment program for their sewage and compliance with the Sanitation Dis- trict. Mr. Walker stated that they are in full compliance with the sanitation requirements, but would agree to such a stipulation. Commissioner Beek stated that in granting the additional height limit, he would like to be assured through a restrictive covenant that there will be no additional development to the site in the future. Mr. Walker stated that at this point, they have no intention for any addi -_ tional development to the site. But,.he also stated.that there may be a need in the future. He added that Planning Commission approval would be needed for any development over 10,000 square feet under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • 11111111 -9- • EXCERPT OF 7/9/81 COMMISSION MINUTES ON TRAFFIC STUDY & UP 1994 PARTIAL PAGES 9, 10, & 11 COMMISSIONER BEEK: I talked with Mr. McDonald independently over the telephone. We are considering granting an extra height, in return for your leaving a lot of open space around it which results in a much improved aesthetics to the project as a whole. Without coming to us for a variance you could have gone ahead and built a lot of the floor area as long as you stayed under the height limit. The problem is, in having granted that extra height, we have no guarantee that you will not go ahead at some later time and get a building permit and build all that extra floor area anyway. Mr. McDonald has assured me that your management has studied the question of how much you want to expand the facility and this represented the full extent of the development you desired for this plan. I would feel much more comfortable if we had that tied down somehow with a restrictive covenant so that we knew that this was the end. Is that • satisfactory to you? MR. SCOTT WALKER: Well, I would have to say no. But let me elaborate. We do have no intentions at this point or the foreseeable future to do any type of continuing development on this plant. We generally feel that it is a built out facility. However, if we were to build and any construction was over 10,000 square feet, we would have come to you for that permission. To build out the plant to the extent you are implying, would require us to build less than 10,000 square feet, 140 times in order to defeat ever coming in for permits. I see no real practical way to avoid being in front of you if we were to do any extensive building. To say that a guard shack of 1,000 square feet may be needed at some point of time or something of that nature to improve operations, it is something that I couldn't say that we would not want to have to do 10, 20 or 50 years from now if it became necessary to build a 1,000 square foot small building on the plant. So, I would not be able to accept the condition that we would never build again on the plant. Our intention is to not build anything. We have no plans to build anything at this point, other than what we have. And certainly, both aesthetically and from a practical standpoint I see no real opportunity to do any significant additional construction or building. Our intent and desire is the same as yours. In a 0 -2- MR. SCOTT WALKER: practical sense, we would not be able to build any (Continued) substantial nature without being back in front of the Planning Commission because anything over 10,000 square feet, I understand, would have to come back before you anyway. I would not be able to have a blanket covenant on the plant. COMMISSIONER BEEK: Could staff verify that they would have to come back to us for anything over 10,000 square feet. I don't know why. HEWICKER: The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance would require this. BEEK: In that case, all we would be judging would be the traffic generation of the project, we would not be able to control it because we thought there was too much floor area. HEWICKER: I have a different way of thinking about it too, • and that would be that if the Planning Commission approves this use permit, and they are approving it with the findings that the higher building is desirable because of the increase in the public open space which is being created around that building, that is a finding of the Commission in granting that approval. If they were to come back at a later date with a proposal which would decrease the amount of open space around that higher building, this would be something which would need review by the Planning Commission because it changes one of the conditions which the Planning Commission had relied upon. Am I correct in this, Mr. Burnham? BURNHAM: Mr. Hewicker was correct until the end. I don't think that the applicant would necessarily have to come back before the Commission because it would be a finding that the Commission would make and not a condition imposed upon the approval of the project. I got a call from Commissioner Beek this afternoon and have done a little work reviewing the Initial Study and the staff report. I think what he may desire and the Commission may desire is to put a condition of approval any new construction in the area between the proposed • addition and Superior Avenue would require approval of the Planning Commission. From my review of the Initial Study and the staff report, one significant fact that allows you to approve this project is the fact that the building is setback a significant degree from Superior and 0 -3- BURNHAM: there is a landscaped berm. You can condition (Continued) variances, but those conditions have to be reasonable. If you were to try to impose some restrictions on the applicant or the owner of the property from building any further on the site, that condition may not be reasonable. But, to cite buildings or additional construction probably would be a reasonable condition and one you may want to add is to put a condition that you would have to approve additional construction in that area between the building and Superior. COMMISSIONER BEEK: That seems very reasonable to me. Let me try an alternate on you and the applicant. . . What if there is a condition that there never be more than 230,000 square feet of building on the site. BURNHAM: This condition would not be reasonable. WALKER: I could live with the other wording suggested, any other improvements between the building and Superior would come back. • BURNHAM: The site is basically covered right now, with the exception of the area between the proposed addition and Superior and a stretch along the southerly border. If they were to add another 20,000 feet to maybe some existing building that is adjacent to Newport and stay within the height limit, they could probably do it and it would not be fair to impose the condition that they come back. Any significant addition to that whole complex will have to be sited in that setback area between Superior and the proposed office building because you have the height limit of 32 feet and if they do that they will have to be back before you anyway. This is the reasoning behind my suggested condition, as one our office could defend. COMMISSIONER BEEK: I am concerned not only with the aesthetics and the traffic generation and the overall growth impact so that the .6 times the buildable. Regardless of where on the site they locate it. But if you say it is unreasonable to try to control that. BURNHAM: It is not unreasonable to control that, but you are granting a variance for height and concerns • about traffic should not enter into to conditions you impose upon that variance. • -4- COMMISSIONER BEEK: I would like to try phasing it one other way. Suppose we impose the condition that they would X34 D have to come back to us for approval if they were 481611- to build anything in excess of say 10,000 square feet or in excess of 5,000 square feet, that it would not just be the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, but it would have to come back to us for overall approval because of this variance. And we impose this as a condition. BURNHAM: My answer would have to be the same as before. COMMISSIONER BEEK: I will wait till later on when we have concluded the public hearing and I'll make that as an amendment to the motion. THE REMAINDER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION. . . • COMMISSIONER BALALIS: Motion was made for approval of the Traffic Study with the findings and condition of Exhibit "A ", and approval of Use Permit No. 1994 with the '^ findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", including 48 the following conditions: "That any construction that when the new building on Superior Avenue in excess of 1,000 square feet be brought back for the approval of the Planning Commission." _T V141i4 & rieao IU,000 s�.�t. 0 0 July 9, 1981 MINUTES JZ City of Newport Beach CALL I INDEX Mr. Burnham., Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the following condition may alleviate Com- missioner Beek's concern: "That any new construc tion in the area between the proposed addition and Superior Avenue would require approval of the Planning Commission." Mr. Burnham stated that the building is setback significantly from Superior Avenue with a landscaped berm. Commissioner Beek expressed his concern for the aesthetics of the project, along with the traffic generation and the growth impact.. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Bert Elliott, representing RMA Archi- tectural Group, explained the building heights. Mr. Makbar Saloma, representing Newport Crest Homeowners Association., expressed the following concerns: 1) The existing sewer system is reaching capacity, which creates a critical situation; 2) Equipment on the top of the building will be unsitely and noisy; and, 37 The would be no reason -to grant the extra height for the massive parking structure.. Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, discussed the sewer capacity and stated that Conditions of Approval Nos. 13 and 14 have been included in order to assure that sewer capacity will be available for the proposed project. Commissioner Winburn expressed her concern that the sewer is reaching full capacity. Mr. Webb stated that additional capacity will have to be provided at the time full capacity is reached. Commissioner Allen asked if the mechanical equip- ment on the roof will be screened. Mr. Elliott stated that the equipment will be totally en- closed and sound insulated on the new building. Commissioner Allen asked if the applicant would stipulate to.a condition that the mechanical • IIIIIIII '° x aD 'JC N Moon July 9,1981 M equipment be finished to architecturally blend with the building. Mr. Elliott concurred. . MINUTES Commissioner Allen also asked if they would stipulate that the mechanical .equipment be sound attenuated to be no greater than 55 dba at the property line. Mr. Elliott stated that they would stipulate to this requirement on the entire development. Mr. Elliott..presented an' artists rendering of the proposal to the Commission. Commissioner Beek stated that the parking struc- ture visually impacts Superior Avenue. He asked the architect ifthey could design the structure so as to not exceed the height limit. Mr. Walker stated that the . straight line of the parking structure is aesthetically pleasing; which also includes. landscaping between the . building and the street. 7fiotion., was; made for., approval of.the Traffic Study with the findings and condition of Exhibit "A ", and approval of:Use Permit No. 1994 with the findings and conditions of Exhi- bit "A ", including the following conditions: 1) That the project conform to the pretreatment requirements of the Sanitation District; 2) That the mechanical equipment be sound attenuated to be no greater than 55 Dba -at the property line; 3) that the mechanical equipment on the top of the building be finished to architecturally blend; 4) That any new construction in the area between the proposed addition and Superior Ave - nue in.excess of 10,000 square feet, would re -. quire the approval of the Planning Commission; 5) Tank farm relocation condition as recommende by staff; and, 6) Off - street parking condition as recommended by staff. Commissioner Allen referred to the Traffic Study condition and asked what trip generation reduc -11- INDEX July 9, 1981 MINUTES ' City of Newport Beach INDEX tion measures the applicant will be utilizing, either staggered work hours, or contribution to the Coast Highway /Superior Avenue intersection improvements. Commissioner Allen stated that the Coast Highway/ Su.perior intersection .iinprbvements.should be in place prior to occupancy, Mr. Walker stated that they are most willing to set aside their fair share of funds for the improvements. He. stated that it would be an unfair burden to wait for the resolution of the problems involved with the CALTRANS property. Commissioner Beek stated that the purpose of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is not to collect money, but to keep the traffic-and intersections. from becoming impacted. Commissioner Allen suggested that. the applicant contribute their fair share to the intersection • improvements that are mentioned, prior to occu- pancy. However, if the intersection improvements are not in place-prior-to occupancy, then in the interim period, the applicant implement either the car pool /van pool program or the staggered work hour program,.until.the intersection im provements are in place. Mr. Walker stated that they have made an ag- gressive- attempt to encourage pooling within their company. However, he stated that they would not like to stipulate to. these as condi- tions of approval. He ,stated that van pooling is a relatively new innovation and the results can not be known at this time. Commissioner Allen stated that other developers have been required to make the roadway improve- ments pr.ior to occupancy. Commissioner King referred, to the negotiated off -site parking area. and asked if the lease can be continued until the intersection improve- 0 11111111 -12- July 9, 1981 MINUTES I i 1 1 1?3=1 City of Newport Beach INDEX Amendment Ayes Noes Amendment ments have been completed. Mr. Walker stated that-he does not know if the.lease can be continued. In response to a question posed.by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Webb explained the existing and pro - posed Coast Highway /Superior Avenue improvements. X Amendment to the motion was made that the parking X X structure conform-to the 32 Foot Height Limit, X K X back to the first ramp, which AMENDMENT FAILED. Amendment to the motion was made that the appli- cant contribute his fair share of funds to the intersection improvements in the three areas of impact, and if the improvements are not in place prior to completion, the other solutions shall be put into operation. • Commissioner King stated that.the City will determine the dollar amount for the roadw.ay improvements and suggested that the applicant meet with the other developers in the area to determine the fair share amount. Ayes X X X X X X Amended motion by Commissioner Balalis for Noes approval of the Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 1994 was now voted on as follows, which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED: TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed trip generation measures Are acceptable and will be permanently implemented through.the conditions of this approval and that of Use Permit No. 1994. 2. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of.the Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. • (!!11111 -13- MSSIONERS July 9., 1981 MINUTFS CIO I City of Newport Beach M TOLLCALLI III Jill I INDEX 0 3., That based on that Traffic Study, the pro - posed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major ", "primary- modified ", or "primary street. CONDITIONS: That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to the Circulation Systems Improvements described in the Initial Study.- Appendix B, Page 14, Table 8 and these improvements shall have been completed (unless subsequent project approvals require modifications thereto)... The improvements shall be subject to. the approval of the Citys.Traffic Engineer. 2. That if the applicant wishes to occupy the proposed addition prior to the completion of the improvements described in Condition No. 1 above, the applicants shall .demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Depart- ment and Public Works'Department that they have implemented the trip generation reduc- tion measures indicated in the Traffic Study or measures equally effective approved by the City Traffic Engineer. These measures shall. remain in effect until the improvements described in Condition No. 1 above have been completed. USE PERMIT NO. 1994 FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declara- tion have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been consider- ed in the decisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project in- corporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environ- mental effects, and that the project wi1J not result in significant environmental im- pacts. -14- CALL i 1 I IG July 9, 1981 071 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. MINUTES 4. The increased building height will result in more public visual open space than could be achieved 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 is required by the basic height limit. 6. The increased building height will not re- sult in undesirable or abrupt scale rela- tionships being created between the . struc - ture 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. Adequate off - street parking and related ..vehicular circulationare being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 9. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 10. That parapet walls will be constructed ad- jacent to the proposed roof parking area that will shield the parked automobiles from view from adjoining property and streets. 11. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or 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 be detrimental or injurious to pro- -15- MISSIONERS July 9, 1981 MINUTES City P of Newport Beach NXX perty and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City,and further that the proposed modification for the compact parking spaces is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 12. The approval of Use Permit No. 1994 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general wel- fare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or in- jurious to property or 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, elevation and sections. 2. That the relocation of the tank farm con- tainershall be done in accordance with Section 9.08.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. That all applicable conditions of'the Traffic Study shall be fulfilled prior to the issuance of any building permit(s) for the site. 4. A complete hydrology study and hydraulic analysis shall be performed to address the amount of and manner in which all flows to and from the site are accommodated. 5. Development of the site shall be subject . to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 6. That a grading plan shall include a com- plete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. -16- ms July 9, 1981 M MINUTES INDEX The grading permit shall include, if re- quired, a description of haul routes, access routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program de- signed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 8. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 9. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. -17- 10. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the pro - ject design. 11. That grading shall be conducted in accor- dance with plans prepared by a Civil En- gineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist. subsequent to the completion of a compre- hensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 12. That final design of the project shall pro- vide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water using facilities. 13. Prior to the issuance of any building per- mits for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification • from Orange County Sanitation District No. 6. -17- 1 WSSIONERS July 9, 1981 m g City of Newport Beach MINUTFS 14. Prior to occupancy of any building, the appiicantsshall provide written verifica- tion from Orange County Sanitation District No. 6 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 19. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. Said plans shall include the installation of specimen -sized trees in front of the parking structure along the • Superior Avenue frontage of the property. Iff-M 15. 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. 16. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning • Department. 17. Plans for the proposed building and parking structure shall be reviewed by fire offi- cials to ensure adequate fire prevention and fire suppressor systems. 18. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construc- tion schedule. (Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the land- scaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan). 19. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. Said plans shall include the installation of specimen -sized trees in front of the parking structure along the • Superior Avenue frontage of the property. Iff-M x _a CIO m� July 9. 1981 M Beach MINUTES INDEX 24. That should any resources.be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or palenotologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construc- tion activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K -5 and K -6. 25. 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 shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: -19- 20. The landscape plan shall include a main- tenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 21. The landscape plan shall place heavy em- phasis on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 22. The site's existing landscape plan shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The existing landscape program shall be modified to include the concerns of the conditions above to the maximum extend practicable. Any change(s) in said existing program as a result of this review shall be phased and incorporated as a . portion of existing landscape maintenance. 23. The project shall be�so designed to elimin- ate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. All parking lot.lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. 24. That should any resources.be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or palenotologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construc- tion activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K -5 and K -6. 25. 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 shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: -19- MMISSIONERS July 9, 1981 MINUTES City �p of Newport Beach INDEX a) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. • 26. That the final design of on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 27. That the Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 28. The new driveway shall be a minimum of 28 feet wide. 29. Signing shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. 30. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated.by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 31. The layout of the surface and structure parking shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 32. A traffic signal shall be installed at the center driveway if the warrants are met within five years from the date of occu- pancy. A bond for $125,000 shall be provided. -20- July 9, 1981 M Ewe MINUTES TritO 33. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 34. That a 5 foot wide P.C.C. sidewalk and appurtenances be completed along the Dana Street frontage, and that the work will be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 35. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 36. That the existing drive approach to be re- moved and relocated on Superior Avenue, be replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. 37. That the landscaping plans adjacent to the • drive entrances be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation, for sight distance requirements. 38. That the location of the Hughes'monument sign be approved by the Public Works Department. 39. That the water service be installed as re- quired by the Mesa Consolidated Water District. 40. That the sewer be constructed as required by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 41. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to be no greater than 55 Dba at the property line. 42. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Depart- ment that they are and will conform to the • pre- treatment requirements of the Sanita- tion District. -21- July 9, 1981 M t Beach MINUTES M ALL CALL I 111 I 1 1 1 1 INDEX] 43. That any roof top mechanical equipment shall be finished to architecturally blend with the proposed structure. 44. The relocation of the tank farm shall be accomplished in such a manner so as not to be detrimental to the existing or future operation of the City Corporation Yard. The relocation shall be approved by the Director of General Services and the fire Department. 45. That an off- street.parking program during the construction phase of the project be approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. • 46. That any new construction in the area be- tween the proposed addition and Superior Avenue in excess of 10,000 square feet, will require the approval of the Planning Commission. 0 11111111 -22- NMISSiONERS July 9, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach INDEX Request to permit the construction of .a single- Item #6 family dwelling in the R -1 District that exceeds the height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. VARIANCE LOCATION:. Lot 17, Block E, Tract No. 1219, NO. 1086 located at -607 Kings Road, on the southerly side of Kings Road, easterly of Signal. Road in Cliff Haven. APPROVED CONDI- ZONE: R -1 TIONALLY APPLICANTS:. Richard W. and Carolyn J: Hormuth, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants The public hearing opened in connection with • this item and Mr. Gregory Bennett, architect for the.applicants, stated that they are in concurrence staff report findings and condition. n L� Commissioner Allen asked if this building will be the same height as the buildings on either side of it. Planning Director..Hewitker respond- ed that this bu.ilding will be lower that the adjacent buildings. Mr. George Roudanez, property owner of 610 Kings Road, located.across the street from the pro- posed development, requested that -the Variance be denied. He discussed the history of the general neighborhood and,stated that this-pro- posal will. make the highest building from the curb, on Kings Road on.the bluff side. Mr. Greg Bennett explained the proposed design of the building and the nature of the ravine. Commissioner Allen asked the height of the buildings on either side of the proposal at the -23- Motion S *titute M on Ayes Noes. Abstain Ayes Noes Abstain • rim X July 9, 1981 0 mm, MINUTES curb. Planning Director Hewicker stated that portions of the buildings on the other lots may be higher. Mr. Bennett stated that the difference is approx- mately 2 feet higher at the curb, but still falls within the 24 foot envelope at that point. He stated that the variance being requested is 50 feet further into the property. Mr.. Roudanez stated that he questions the heights of the buildings being discussed. Motion was made for approval of Variance No. 1086 subject to the findings and condition of Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Beek stated that he would abstain from a vote, due to a possible conflict of interest. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Allen that the height from the curb be no higher than 16.8 feet. Mr. Bdnnett stated that it would be structurally unsound to step a building on a lot of this nature with the condition suggested by Commis- sioner Allen. Mr. Doug McMillan, resident of 615 Kings Road, stated that the height variance being. requested will not be visible from the street because it is located on the. low section of the lot. X Substitute Motion by Commissioner Allen was now voted on, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED. Motion for approval by Commissioner Balalis was now voted on as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: X - FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to. the land, building -24- INDEX cMISSIONERS July 9, 1981 City of Newport Beach MINUTES HIM or use referred to in the application, which circumstances_ or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district, because of the steep.topography of the site. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the appli- cant, since the steep terrain and ravine in the middle of the site precludes the construction of a single family dwelling within the required 24 foot height limit. 3. That the proposed building height (that portion in excess of 24 feet, measured from existing grade) will not, under the cir- cumstances of the particular case, • materially affect.adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circum- stances of the particular case be mater- ially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. CONOITTON: I I 1 that development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections. • I I I I I I 11 .,. COMMISSIONERS July 9, '1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach LL CALL INDEX Request to permit the construction of a, two- Item #7 unit residential condominium project and related garage spaces on property located in the R -2 USE PERMIT. District. NO. 2000 AND AND Request to create one parcel of land for resi- dential condominium purposes so as to allow the construction of a two -unit condominium project, Item #8 in the R -2 District. LOCATION: Lot 11, Block 33.1, Corona del Mar, RESUB- located at 411 Dahlia Avenue, on DIVISION the northwesterly side of Dahlia NO. 690, Avenue, between First Avenue and Bayside Drive in Corona del Mar.. ZONE: R -2 BOTH ,APPROVED APPLICANT: Harold R. Sproul,.Corona del Mar CONDI- TIONALLY OWNER: Same as applicant. Agenda Item Nos. 7 and 8 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. The public hearing opened in connection with thes items and Mr. Harold R. Sproul, the applicant, appeared before the Commission -and stated.that he was in concurrence with the staff report. Commissioner Beek stated that the condominium conversion ordinance would prohibit converting an existing building into a condominium on this lot which is less than 5,000 square feet. The applicant is going to bulldoze down the existing building and build a new one, instead of conver- ting,it. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. Ayes X X Y X X 2000.subject to the following findings and con - Noes X X ditions, which MOTION CARRIED: •. -26- mac July 9, 1981 M Beach MINUTES ILL CALL INDEX n CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con - formance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That one garage space and one carport space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. That all the conditions of Resubdivision No. 690 shall be fulfilled. -27- USE PERMIT NO. 2000 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 an.d 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 condo - minium development. 6. The esta.blishment,. maintenance or operation of the use or buildi.ng 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 detri.mental or injur- ious- to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the .general welfare.of the City. n CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con - formance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That one garage space and one carport space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. That all the conditions of Resubdivision No. 690 shall be fulfilled. -27- July 9, 1981 z MINUTES INDEX RESUBDIHISION NO. 690 Motion jjjXj tlIIMotion was made for approval of Resubdivision Ayes X X X X No. 690 subject to the following findings and Noes X conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the maps meet the requi- rements 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. CONDITIONS: • 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements .be constructed as re- quired by ordinances and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with in- dividual sewer laterals and:water services unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That all vehicular access to the property be from the alley. • 11111111 -28- July 9, 1981 MINUTIS City of Newport Beach Request to permit the construction of a three story medical office building (one level of office space and two levels of parking) ex- ceeding 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area in a Specific Area Plan where a Specific Area Plan has not been adopted, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested since the two level parking areas encroach 6 feet, and stairways and landscape planter encroach 10 feet, into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to a 20 foot wide alley. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 58 -23 (Resubdivision No. 405), located at 350 North Newport Boulevard, on the southerly corner of North Newport Boulevard and Beacon Street adjacent to Newport Heights. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: James R. Harris, A.I.A., Newport Beach OWNER: Independent Development Co., Irvine The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Jim Harris, the applicant, briefly described the project and requested approval of the use permit. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the majority of the letters received regarding this project express concerns relating to interferenc from electronic equipment, access, cars in the alley, noise and burglaries which may occur due to.the commercial use being located adjacent to a residential area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Harris explained the location of the driveway and ramp which will be constructed. He stated that they are not proposing an entrance off of the alley. -29- INDEX ED m July 9, 1981 on O MINUTES LULL CALL I 1 1 1 Jill I INDEX —10 In response to a question posed by Beek, Mr. Harris stated that they landscape the,back portion of the but that the staff is recommending improved with paving. Commissioner would rather property, that it be Mr. Al Beasley, representing his.mother who re- sides at 337 Holmwood Drive, appeared before the Commission and expressed their concerns relating to overbuilding in a buffer zone, safety of the residents., increased traffic on Holmwood Drive and safety of the alley. Mr. Tom Misterly, resident of 432 Holmwood Drive, stated that this proposed use will increase traffic and effect everyone on Holmwood Drive. He stated that the parking may also empty onto the side streets. Ms. Pat Strang, representing the Newport Heights Community Association, referred to her letter • dated July 1, 1981, which expressed concerns relating to traffic, noise, electronic inter- ference and the encroachment into the rear yard setback. • Commissioner King asked staff to explain why landscaping is an unacceptable solution, versus the paving. Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, ex- plained the required setback area and also stated that cars.sometimes.have a tendency to back into landscaped areas . such -as -this. Commissioner Beek asked the applicant to explain why :b3 parking spaces are bei.ng proposed, when only 33 are required. Mr. Harris stated that the employee parking.wil.l be on one level and. the customer parking will be on the other level. He stated that many customers will be coming to this facility by themselves, and therefore,_more parking may be necessary. He stated that they would prefer to landscape the alley,.in order to keep people from pa.rking in the alley. -30- 6/WSSIONERS July 9, 1981 m Cie City of Newport Beach MINUTES Ms. LuAnne Baker, resident of 413 Holmwood Drive, stated that the ramp in the back which leads to Beacon Street.may encourage people to park in this area. She also expressed.concern with the amount of traffic and the excess speed of the cars which has occurring on Holmwood Drive, which is a residential street. Mr. Phillip Pike, resident of 333 Holmwood Drive, stated.that his garage backs directly onto this proposed development.. He stated that paving is more acceptable than landscaping. He added that this proje.ct will add noise to the residential uses whi.ch are adjacently located. Commissioner King asked if signs will be install in the a.11.ey restricting parking. Mr: Webb stated that this w.ould normally be a loading zone area in which parking wou.ld be allowed. Commissioner Beek suggested that the alley be • marked.for no- parking with a.five foot setback area for landscaping. He stated that a 25 foot alley would be most adequate. Commissioner Balalis stated that.it is important that the proposed development does not become a burden to the surrounding neighborhood, and.made the following motion: Motion Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2001, subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A ", with revisions as follows: 1) That the buildable space. allowed to be .5 rather than .74; 2) That the alley in the rear to be land- scaped; and, 3) That all other items such as mechan.i.cal elevators be screened to the level that they provide 55 dbi on the property line. Commissioner Allen asked what.assurances there are that the electron.ical /x -ray equipment will not interfere with television reception in the residential area. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the equipment passes certain manu- • 11111111 -31- • Ayes Noes I XIX IXlX I,1 U July 9, 1981 MINUTES of Newport Beach facturing standards and regulations. Commissioner Allen suggested that a sound attenu- ation. condition'be imposed on this project for the roof top mechanical equipment and elevator. Mr. Burnham stated that the applicant may not be able to perform with such a condition. Commissioner Beek stated that electronic inter- ference would come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission. Commissioner Allen suggested a condition, "That the electronic equipment be designed in such a manner so as to not interfere with.normal house- hold uses in the adjacent residential area." Commissioner Balalis stated that the Commission should regulate noise, but questioned whether or not the Commission should regulate television reception. Commissioner Beek asked for clarification on the motion. Commissioner Balalis stated that there will be no parking.in the alley, along with a condition that there be five feet of paving and five feet.of landscaping. Commissioner Balalis directed staff to rewrite this condition. Motion for approval of Use Permit No. 2001, was now voted on as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Lan -d Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with s.urrounding.land uses. 2. The project will not have.any significant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. -32- INDEX July 9, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach INDEX 4. The proposed office building is in keeping with the desired character of the specific plan area as identified by the General Plan. 5. The.proposed use will not preclude the attainment of the Specif.ic Area Plan ob- jective stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 6. That.the proposed rear yard encroachments of the parking levels below grade of the abutting alley will not obstruct commercial delivery trucks or passengers that may be picked up or dropped off at the rear of the bu.ilding. Therefore, said encroachments 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 and will not be detrimenta.l or injurious to pro- perty and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City, and. further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of the Zoning Code. That the proposed rear yard landscape en- croachments as approved will not obstruct the use of the alley for existing residen- tial uses and therefore.will not, under the circumstances of the particular.case, be detrimental to the heal.th, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons re- siding or working in the neighborhood and will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbor= hood and the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed mod.ifications are consistent with the legislative intent. of the Zoning Code. 8. The approval of Use Permit No. 2001 will not under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health., safety, peace, • 11111111 1 -33- CALL MS90NERS. July 9, 1981 fil CON X City :of Newport Beach MINUTFS morals, comfort and general welfare of per- sons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or. improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That devt&Iopment shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, sections and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed landscaped planters shall be permitted to encroach 5' into the required 10 foot rear yard abutting the alley. 3. With the exception of the landscape planter encroachments,.the 10 foot rear yard shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or other • .street surfacing material of a permanent nature. This area may not b'e utilized for parking of commercial delivery trucks or passenger vehicles. Signs shall be posted at the rear of the site indicating that said paved area not be utilized as parking spaces for the adjoining medical office facility. That a minimum -of one parking.space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area within the surrounding exterior walls of the building shall be provided on the subject property. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the 20 foot alley, adjacent properties and streets. 6. That an interior lighting plan of the off- street parking areas shall be designed'in such a manner that eliminates any.glare and ambient light to adjacent public roadways, alleys or residential areas. • 111111 -34- HIM iMISSIONERS July 9, 1981 City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX 7. That the average building height be limited to 32 feet, measured from natural grade and be limited to 37 feet maximum ridge height, measured from natural grade. 8. Driveways shall be a minimum 24 feet bottom width. 9. Walls adjacent to the drive openings shall either be held back 5' -0" from the edge of the drives or shall contain equivalent open- ings to enable motorist to see pedestrians. The building plans shall be reviewed and ap- proved by the City Traffic Engineer for con- formance with this requirement prior to iss- uance of building permits. 10. Landform alteration on the site may be sub- ject to the approval of a grading permit. The grading permit, if required, shall be • prepared by a Civil Engineer based upon recommendation of an engineering geologist. The grading permit shall include: a. An investigation.of surface and subsurface drainage. b. A complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities. c. An erosion and dust control plan. d. An erosion and siltation control plan ap- proved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. e. A comprehensive soil and geologic investi- gation. f. A surface drainage plan that will not create downstream erosion. g.. Erosion control measures on all exposed slopes. 11. The proposed development shall provide for vacuum sweeping of parking areas.. 12. The project shall provide for the incor- poration of water - saving devices for all water -using facilities. . -35- July 9, 1981 z me 13. The project shall provide for the sorting of recyclable materials from other solid wastes. 14. The project shall investigate the use of alternative energy sources (i.e., solar) and to the maximum extent economically feasible incorporate the use of said in project designs. MINUTES 15. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding theJohn Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or sub - leases for space in the project and should be included in any Covenants, Cond- itions and Restriction which may be recorded against any undeveloped site.. INDEX -36- Disclosure Statement . The Lessee herein, his.heirs, successors and assign,, acknowledge that: a. The John Wayne Airport may not be able to pro - vide adequate air service for business estab- lishments 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 may continue to oppose additional commercial air service ex- pansions 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 Air- port. 16. That all improvements be completed as required, by ordinances and the Public Works Department. 17. That the unused driveway aprons on Beacon Street and North Newport Boulevard- Westminster • Avenue be removed and replaced with P.C.C.curb, gutter and sidewalk. -36- kANSSU%fRS July 9, 1981 MINUTFS A I I ' City of Newport Beach 18. That full width P..C.Csidewalk be reconstructed where existing, and completed wherenot exist- ing, along the Beacon Street and North Newport Boulevard frontages. That aP.C.C.access ramp be provided at the southeast corner of Beacon Street and North Newport Boulevard. 19. That the existing 21 -foot catch basin on North Newport Boulevard be reconstructed along with a portion of the connector pipe in a locatto0. approved by the,Public Works Department. 20. That a standard use permit agreement and accom panying surety be provided to guarantee the statisfactory completion of the Public improve ments. If it is desired to obtain a. Building Permit prior to completion of the Public improvements. 21. That the soils and geology investigation • for the site, review the need for a subdrain system behind the rear wall of the.structure and that the recommendations of the soils engineer /geologist be followed. n U 22. That the. structural area of the project, excluding parking areas, shall be limited to .5 times the buildable area of the site. 23. That the elevator equipment and all roof top mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated so a.s not to exceed 55.Dba at the property lines. -37- July 9, 1981 itV of MINUTES Request to permit the construction of 'a two unit residential condominium project.and related garage spaces on property located in the R -2 District. AND Request to resubdivide.portion of 3 lots into one lot for residential condominium purposes. LOCATION: A portion of Lots 17, 19, and 21,'' Block 733, Corona del Mar; located at 2721 Fifth Avenue, located on the southwesterly side of Fifth Avenue between Fernleaf Avenue and Goldenrod Avenue in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 • APPLICANT:. Earl Luff,.Balboa Island OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Norman.E..Harms, Anaheim Agenda Item Nos. 10 and 11 were heard concurrentl due to their relationship. The public hearing opened in connection with these items an.d Mr. Earl Luff, the applicant, referred to condition of approval No. 6 for Resubdivision No. 691 and requested that the existing parkway trees be maintained. He stated that he has designed the, structure around the existing ficus trees. In respbnse to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that it would be impractical to construct a sidewalk area if the ficus trees were to be maintained. • I I I I I I(� � -38 INDEX tem # AND Item # RESUB- DIV —IS I NO. 69 BOTH APPROV CONDI -. July 9, 1981 M t Beach MINUTES Mr. Luff.s.tated that this is the only address on Fifth Avenue that faces Fifth Avenue and requested that a sidewalk pathway be constructed around the trees. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Commission may want to add a condition of approval that the applicant be required.to enter into a hold harmless indemni- fication agreement with the City. Commissioner Thomas asked if obtaining an easement would also be. necessary. _Mr. Burnham concurred. -39- • INDEX Commissioner Beek expressed his concern with the inadequate 3- 1 /2.foot.setback from the alley. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. Ayes X X Y X Y 2002 subject to.the findings and conditions as Noes X follows; which MOTION CARRIED. • FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units.has been de- signed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project will comply with all applicable standard.pians 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 GNneral Plan. 5. That adequate.on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. -39- • INDEX aVYSS{ONERS July 9, 1981 I City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or buildi.ng 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 injur- ious to property and f4provements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: T. That development shall be in substantial con - formance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 3. That all the conditions of Resubdivision No. • 691 shall be fulfilled.. Motion X Motion was made to approve Resubdivision No.. 691 subject to the findings and conditions as follows to include a revision that the existing parkway trees be maintained with a walkway to be con- structed at the discretion of the Planning De- partment staff. Also to include that the appli- cant enter into a hold h. armless- indemnification agreement with the City and to grant an easement. Ayes X X X X X X Motion for approval of.Resubdivision No. 6.91 was Noes now voted on as fol.l.ows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the maps meet the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach.Muni -cipal Code, all ordinances of the City,.all applicable, general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. • I I I I I I I I2 That the proposed.resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. -40- E July 9, 1981 itv of MINUTFS INDEX CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by ordinances and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be. served with in- dividual.sewer laterals and water services unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That all vehicular access to the property be from the alley. 5. That the existing unused drive depression on Fifth Avenue be removed and replaced with PCC curb. • 6. That the existing parkway trees shall be maintained and a sidewalk shall be installed at the discretion of the Planning Department. If the sidewalk is required to encroach onto private property, an easement shall be dedicated to the City and a hold harmless agreement recorded. 7. That a subdivision agreement and accom- panying surety be provided if it is desired to record the Parcel Map prior to completion of the public improvements. 8. That the broken water meter box in the. alley be replaced. • 1!!11111 -41- July 9, 1981 MINUTFS City of Newport Beach Agenda Item No. 12 was heard first on the Agenda. Request to review landscape and wall plans by the Planning. Commission as required by Condition of Approval No. 11 of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11377. LOCATION: The Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community, located on property bounded by Bison Avenue on the north, MacArthur Boulevard on the east, Ford Road on the south and Jamboree Road on the west. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company, Inc., • Newport Beach OWNER: same as applicant. The discussion opened in connection with this item.and..Mr. Bob Trapp, representing the appli- cant, requested approval.of the wall and land- scape plans. Commissioner Beek stated that sound attenuating walls should be constructed with curves so as to disperse the sound. He stated that no sound attenuation wall should have a radius of more than 50 feet. Mr. Don Brinkerhoff, the landscape architect, for the applicant, stated that the sound attenuation will be handled by an eathern berm, the wall itself and intense mature plantings near the walls. He described the revised plan and the texture of the wall that will be constructed. Motion X Motion was .made for approval of the landscape and Ayes X X X X wall plans in concept only, which MOTION CARRIED. Noes jXjjj • -42- INDEX ion APPROVED IN CONCEPT COMMISSIONERS July 91 1981 MINUTFS CFO City of Newport Beach CALL I I I I I I INDEX Request for a modification to the Zon.ing Code so as to allow the following structural en =. Item #14 croachments in conjunction with the construction of a.single family dwelling in the R -1 -B -2 District: 1) encroachment of 5 feet into the MODIFICA- required 10 foot west side yard setback; 2) en- TION NO. croachment of 2 feet 3 inches into the required 2690 10 foot east side yard setback. This application also reques.ts.to establish a 60 foot front setback where the Zoning Code permits a maximum (Appeal) front setback of 35 feet. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 287, Newport Heights Tract, located at 2411 APPROVED 22nd Street on the southwesterly CONDI- side of 22nd Street between Tustin TIONALLY Avenue and Irvine Avenue adjacent to Dover Shores. ZONE: R -1 -B-2 • APPLICANT: Harold Brownell, Costa Mesa OWNER: Same as applicant APPELLANT: Same as applicant The public hearing opened in connection With thi item and Mr. Brownell; the applicant, discussed the background information on this item. He stated that 90 percent of the existing residences in this area have a 5 foot encroachment. Mr. Carl Arthofer, property owner of 2401 22nd Street, voiced his opposition to the side yard encroachments. He stated that they have no ob- jection to the 60 foot front yard setback. He stated that i.t.would be possible for the applican to design a house to fit his lot. Motion X Motion was made to sustain the decision of the All Ayes X X X XX X X Modifications Committee and permit the proposed 60 foot front yard setback and deny the requested encroachments.into the required 10 foot sideyard setbacks, subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: • -43- July 9, 1981 MINUTFS 9 City of Newport Beach LL CALL I I I I I I I INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That to require the applicant to maintain a 35' front yard setback would be detrimental to the neighborhood, inasmuch as the majority of residences on the south side of 22nd Stree. maintain 60' front yard setbacks. 2. That there is adequate space on the lot to design a single family dwelling without encroaching into the required 10 foot side yards.. 3. A majority of the existing dwelling units located on the large lots on the south side of 22nd Street maintain the required 10 foot side yards. 4. That the proposed development will not be • detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons resid- ing or working i.n the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbor- hood or the.general welfare of the City and further that the proposed 60 foot front yard setback is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con formance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations, except as noted in Con- dition No. 2. 2. That all construction. a hall conform to the re- quired 10' side yard setbacks 3. That the applicant shall dedicate to the City an additional 10' of right -of -way along the entire lot frontage for the ultimate widening of 22nd Street. • IIIIIIII "' -44- MSSIONERS July 9, 1981 MINUTFS City �p of Newport Beach Cie INDEX Request to change the operational characteristics of an existing restaurant in the C -1 -H District Item #15 so as to allow the sale of beer and wine in con-: jun.ction.with the restaurant operation. The pro- posed development also includes tandem parking spaces and.valet parking for the restaurant use. USE PERMIT NO. 2005 LOCATION: Lots.74 and 75, Tract No. 1011, located at 4001 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway between Newport Continued Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard.., to July adjacent to Balboa Coves. 23, 1981 ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Royal Thai Cuisine Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Mary Howard., Newport Beach • The.public hearing opened in connection with this item and a representative of the applicant re- quested approval of this use permit. Mr. Sanford Wilford, representing Balboa Coves Community Association, stated that eight of the parking spaces are leased by the Association to the owner of the property. He stated that the terms.of their lease prohibits the use of a bar or a lounge, thereby making the entire .plan objectionable. Motion Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 2005 All Ayes X X 1111.J1X1J X X to the Planning Commission Meeting of July 23, 1981, so that the applicant can come to terms with the community a.ssoeiation, which MOTION CARRIED. • -45- July 9, 1981 MINUTFS 11,05 1 i City of Newport Beach INDEX Request to establish a restaurant facility with Item #16 on -sale beer and wine in an existing building located in the C -1 District which maintains an existing use permit for the parking of automobile on the roof. USE PERMIT NO. 2006 LOCATION: Lot 53, Block B, Tract No. 673, located at 3840 E. Coast Highway on the northerly side of East Coast Highway between Hazel Drive APPROVED and Seaward Road in Corona del Mar.: CONDI- TIONALLY which MOTION CARRIED: -46- ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Mitsuo Ueno, Costa Mesa OWNER: Duca McCoy, Corona del Mar The public - hearing opened in connection with this • item and Mr. George Vogel, representing the.appli- cant, requested approval of the .use permit. Chairman McLaughli:n.expressed her concern with the.accessibility of the parking. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition of Approval No. 3 and stated that this will require that all employees shall park on- site. Commissioner Thomas suggested that the applica- tion be approved with a condition that parking shall be on -site or approval of an off -site parking agreement. Commissioner Allen suggested a closing time of 11:00 p.m. rather than midnight, thus being less of an annoyance to the adjacent residential uses. Thomas Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. Ayes X X X 2006., including a provision that all parking Noes X shall be on: -site or approval of an off -site parking agreement and the closing hour to be in 11:00 p.m. Motion was now voted on as.follows, which MOTION CARRIED: -46- July 9, 1981 MINUTES m City of Newport Beach INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed.restaurant use As con - sistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible.with sur- rounding land uses. 4. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public street, abutting alley or adjoining properties. 2. The proposed development will not create any significant environmen.tal impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not. contemplate any problems. 4. The approval of Use Permit.No. 2006 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neigh- borhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: I. The development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved floor plans, with the exception that parking space No. 9 shall be deleted. 2. That the exi.sting on -site parking spaces shall be made available for the restaurant'' patrons after 5:00 p.m. during the week and 12:00 noon on weekends. 3. That all restaurant employees shall be re- quired to park on -site, unless parking is subsequently provided in an off -site location However, in no case shall employees be per - mitted to park on the streets. 4. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public street, abutting alley or adjoining properties. c July 9, 1981 M t Beach MINUTES M TOLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX C� 5. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control odors and smoke in accordance with Rule 401 of the Rules and Regulation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In addition, the kitchen hood system shall have an automatic fire pro- tection system installed. 6. That the restaurant facility shall not be open for business prior to 5:00 p.m. during the week, 12:00 noon on weekends, or after 11:00 p.m. on any day. 7. That a minimum of one.pa.rking space/40-sq. ft. of "Net Public Area" shall be provided for the restaurant facility. Request to establish.a take -out ice cream shop in the C -1 District adjacent to McFadden Square, and to waive a portion of the required off- street parking spaces in conjunction with said use. The approval also requests a modification in the required size of parking spaces.and aisle width. One of the required parking is also located in the required 1O.foot rear yard setback adjacent to a 10 foot wide alley. LOCATION: Lots 14 and 15. Block 120, Section A, Newport Beach Tract, located at 2001 West Balboa Boulevard on the westerly corner of West Balboa Boulevard and _20th Street in the McFadden Square area. ZONE: C -1' APPLICANTS: Landon D. and Betty J. Wellford, Santa Monica OWNER: Ellie and Ben Chavez, Newport Beach -48- Item #17 USE PERMIT NO. 2007 WITHDRAWN i i I l July 9, 1981 Of MINUTES Staff advised that the applicant for Item No. 17, Use Permit No. 2007, has withdrawn this item. Request.to permit the construction of a four unit residential condominium project and re- lated.garage spaces in the R- 4.District. A modification to the Zoning Code is also re- que:sted inasmuch as the proposed development. encroaches: a) 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback on West Bay Avenue; b) 3 feet into the required.10 foot front yard setback along 19th.Street; and c) 1 foot 6 inches into the required 3.5•foot side yard setback along Vilelle Place. AND • I III I Request to create one parcel of land for resi- dential condominium development where two lots LOCATION: Parcel I of Parcel Map 120- 20 -21. (Resubdivision No. 590) and .a portion of Lot l of Block B, Newport Tract located at 1824 Vilelle Place and 1521 West Bay Avenue on the northeasterly side. of 19th Street and Vilelle Place on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -4 APPLICANTS: Sweeney, Smith, Rossi, Eadington, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants.. Agenda Item .Nos. 18 and 19 were heard.concur- rently due to their relationship. 0 11111111 -49 INDEX I AND m July 9, 1981. M Beach The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Sweeney, representing the applicants, requested approval of these items. MINUTES Mr. Roy Wilson, property owner adjacent to this proposal, expressed his concern with the amount of density which will be created by this proposal Commissioner King concurred with this concern and stated that the Commission can not continue to allow such encroachments. He stated that he woul be in favor of the project, without the requested encroachments. Commissioner Balalis concurred and stated that the mass of the building is too large. INDEX -50- Commissioner King suggested that the.project.be scaled down to fit the site, w.ithout the en- croachments. Mr. Sweeney stated that this project will be • providing owner occupied unfits. He stated that there are design problems because of the shape of the lot. Mr. Wilson stated that he would like more clearance between the buildings. He also.stated that there is a.tr.emendous amount of traffic in the area and this project will only add to the congestion. Commissioner Beek suggested that the applicant consider a reduction in the floor area. He stated that the encroachments are not the real problem. Commissioner Allen expressed her concern with the mass of the building and stated that the adjacent properties are not as dense as thi.s proposal. Motion Motion was made to continue this item to July A1.1 Ayes K X X X X Z. 23, 1981, in. order for the applicant to consider.' breaking down the mass of the building, which MOTION CARRIED. -50- LANSSONERS July 9, 1981 City of Newport Beach MINUTES 'ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Motion All Ayes X Motion All Ayes X I' -I LA • i Commissioner Balalis suggested that the Housing Element be set for public hearing at such time as the comments are received from HCD. He stated that the hearing can be set for July 23, 1981, which would allow time to advertise. He stated that the hearing can then be moved to a specific date when the comments are received. 4X Motion was made to reconsider the Housing X Element, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to continue the Housing Element: to July 23, 1981, or until the comments have been received from HCD. When the comments have been received, a special meeting will be set, which MOTION CARRIED. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Set for Public Hearing: Motion was made to set for public hearing an amendment to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 50 from the R -A District to R -1 -B District, which - MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:20 a.m. I I j Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -51-