HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/1980w
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Place: City Council Chambers
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Date: July 10, 1980
Citv of Newport Beach
Present Ixl *Ixlxxlxx' *Commissioner McLaughlin arrived at 7 :45 p.m.
Absent
EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT
James D. Hewicker, Planning Di.
Robert Burnham, Assistant City
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
William R. Laycock, Current Plan
Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer
Fred Talarico, Environmental Coo
W. William Ward, Senior Planner
Joanne Bader, Secretary to the M
tion
INDEX
Approval of
Minutes of
5/22/80
Continua-
tion of
minutes of
6/19/80
* * *
Motion
x
The minutes of the Planning Commiss
on meeting
Ayes
x
xx
of May 22, 1980 were approved with
he omission
Abstain
x
of the first paragraph of the discu
sion of
10ent
x
x
x
Amendment No. 535 on Page 7. Commi
sioner Haidin
ger abstained as he was absent fromlthe
May 22,
1980 meeting.
Staff advised that the minutes of the
Planning
Commission meeting of June 19, 1980
have not yet
been completed. Therefore, approva
of the sub-
ject minutes was continued to the P
anning Com-
mission meeting of July 24, 1980.
* * *
The Chair announced that Commissioner
McLaughlin
had indicated that she desired to be
present
for the consideration of Agenda Items
1 through
3. Since Commissioner McLaughlin bid
not yet
Motion
x
arrived at the meeting, a motion was
made to
Ayes
x
x
x
x
amend the agenda to commence with At.
enda Item No.
Absent
x
x
x
4 until Commissioner McLaughlin arr
ved, which
motion carried. (Note: Agenda Item
No. 4 was
then considered by the Planning Commission.
Sinc
Commissioner McLaughlin arrived at
he meeting
during the consideration of Agenda
'tem No. 4,,
the remaining agenda items were con
idered in
their original agenda order.) See
Page 13 for
the discussion on Agenda Item No. 4,
I
INDEX
Approval of
Minutes of
5/22/80
Continua-
tion of
minutes of
6/19/80
July 10,1980
rol
MINUTES
ILL CALL _____ INDEX
continue to be occupied and used
by the present lessees until notification by the
City that the right -of -way is needed and that th
City shall be responsible for relocation and /or
reconstruction of existing improvements such as
pump islands, curbs, sidewalks, etc.
-2-
The Continued Public Hearing resumed in connec-
tion with this item and Ron Hendrickson, of _
The Irvine Company, appeared before.the Planning
Commission and expressed, concurrence, with
Condition of Approval No. 26 as currently pro-
posed. Mr. Hendrickson also advised that The
Irvine Company has no concerns with the remaining •
-Item #1
Request to consider a Traffic Phasing Plan for TRAFFIC
the remaining development of the. Corporate Plaza; PHASIlVG
Planned Community, and the acceptance of an PLAN
Environment8l.DOCUment. (COFTOPATE
PLAZA)
LOCATION: Property bounded by East Coast High-
way, Newport Center Drive, Farallon P,PP%]�
Drive, and Avocado Avenue in Newport COIDI-
Center. . TIONAILY
ZONE: P -C
APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same; as Applicant
Planning Director Hewicker advised that this
item was continued from the Planning Commission
meeting of June 19, 1980 to allow the Applicant
and Staff time to reevaluate suggested Condition
of Approval No. 26. Planning Director Hewicker
further advised that the subject condition has
been revised to the satisfaction of both the
Public Works Department and the Applicant.. The
revised language is contained in the staff report
and is being submitted at this time for Planning
Commission consideration.
Traffic Engineer Edmonston clarified that the
original Condition of Approval No. 26 was an
unconditioned right -of -way dedication. The
revised condition provides that the area to be
dedicated may
X
LIM
•
,3uly 10, 1980
Of
r
MINUTES
For the benefit of the persons residing in the
homes situated above the subject bu lding. #.
Commissioner Balalis questioned whether the
proposed roof -top mechanical devices could eithe
be: 1) screened in such a way that it would be
in pace with the building; or 2) situated in the
basement of the structure rather than on the
roof.
Mr. Hendrickson responded that The Irvine
Company would make a concerted effo t to insure
that the equipment enclosure be mad attractive.
Mr. Hendrickson then commented on tie fact that
it would be more expensive to locat the
equipment devices in the basement aid further
commented on the possibility of the roof being
designed so as to provide wells in hick the
mechanical devices could be dropped'
During the course of discussion, Comm ssioner
Allen indicated her preference that landscaping
of the project be made consistent w th the.P -.0
Text for Corporate Plaza, rather than consistent
with the existing landscape program for Corporate
Plaza. Specifically, the P -C Text provides
that "Areas used for parking shall a screened
from view or have the view interrup ed by
landscaping and /or fencing from acc ss streets
and adjacent properties." Commissi ner Allen
felt that the P -C Text provision im lies a more -
horizontal, hedge type of landscapi g, rather
than the tree/open space /tree type f landscaping
currently existing in Corporate Pla a.
Mr. Hendrickson advised that The Ir ine Company
would have no objections to Condit' n of Approval
No. 14 being modified to require th t'land-
scaping be provided in compliance .w'th the P -C.
Text.
There being no others desiring to appear and be
heard on this item, the public hear�ng was
closed.
Commissioner Beek requested that hi following
statement be included in the minute of this
meeting:
-3-
INDEX
Motion
Ayes
Noes
Absent
July 10, 1980
s
City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
"The City has embarked on a program of making
all desirable intersection improvements. The
City can add lanes and paint stripes without
any financial help from this project. The
Traffic Phasing Plan is incorrect in stating
that the project will improve intersection
conditions. At least two intersections which
are now giving unsatisfactory service will
continue to do so. The project will contrib-
ute traffic to these intersections and, there-
fore, will make the unsatisfactory condition
worse. Therefore, there is not a reasonable
correlation between projected traffic and the
capacity of affected intersections."
Motion was made that the Planning Commission
accept the environmental document certifying it
as complete and approve the Traffic Phasing Plan
with the following findings and conditions:
1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declara-
tion has been prepared in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and
City Policy K -3, and that their concerns
have been considered in the decision on this
project.
2. That based on the information contained in ti
Initial Study and Negative Declaration, the
project will not result in significant envi-
ronmental impacts.
3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the
Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned
Community Development Plan for Corporate
Plaza.
4. That based on the Phasing Plan and surroundin,
information submitted therewith, there is a
reasonable correlation between projected
traffic at time of completion and the capaci-
ty of affected intersections.
-4-
INDEX
1MISSIONER5 July 10, 1980
City of Newport Beach
5. That the applicant has taken i
tion in the preparation of his
teristics in the.design of his
which either reduce traffic ge
guide traffic onto less impact
through intersections in the l
direction.
CONDITIONS:
1. That prior to the occupancy of
on the site beyond the existing
completed or under construction
square feet for a total of 2480
feet, the Circulation Systems L
contained in the Traffic Report
3, 1980, Table 4, Page 8, shall
constructed (unless subsequent
approvals require modification
Circulation Systems Improvement
subject to the approval of the
• Engineer.
•
2. That prior to the occupancy ofi
on the site beyond the existing
completed or under construction
square feet for a total of 248,1
the Circulation Systems Improve]
of committed'projects listed on
of the Traffic Report dated Mar4
shall also have been constructe4
subsequent project approvals ret
cations thereto). The Circulat:
Improvements shall be subject ti
of the City Traffic Engineer.
3. That prior to the occupancy of
on the site beyond the existing
completed or under construction
square feet for a total of 248,1
feet, San Miguel Drive shall be
Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Bou:
manner acceptable to the Direct(
Planning and Public Works Depart
subsequent changes are made to +
System.
-5-
MINUTES
considera-
n charac-
ation or
arterials or
t congested
buildings
nd 39,026
0 square
dated March
have been
roject
hereto). The
shall be
ity Traffic:
ny buildings .
development
and 39,026
50 square fee'
ents required
Pages 2 and 3
h 3, 1980,
, (unless
dire modifi-
on Systems
the approval
ny buildings
development
and 39,026
50 square
improved from
evard in a
rs of the
ments, unless
he Circulatio:
COMMISSIONERS July lo, 198o
Fn6" W :)
y . City of N,
MINUTES
INDEX
4. That prior to the issuance of any building
permits, the applicants shall.indicate to the
Director of the Planning Department, in
writing, that they understand and agree to
Conditions 1, 2, and 3 above.
5. The following disclosure statement of the
City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the
Orange County Airport shall, be included in
all leases or sub - leases for space in the
project and shall be included in any Cove-
nants, Conditions, and Restrictions which may
be recorded against the property.
Disclosure Statement
The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and
assigns acknowledge that:
a) The Orange County. 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 availa-
ble, a complete phase out of jet service
may occur at the Orange County Airport;
c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to
oppose additional commercial air service
expansions at the Orange County 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 service at the Orange County
Airport.
6. Final design of the project should provide
for the incorporation of water- saving devices
for project lavatories and other water -using
facilities.
7. The final design of the project should pro-
vide for the sorting of recyclable material
from other solid waste.
8. The applicants shall provide for weekly
sweeping of all paved parking areas and
drives.
-6-
•
E
COMMISSIONERS
s w n
July 10, 1980
C.Si
MINUTES
INDEX
9. That the architectural charactbr establishes
within the existing project sh
%ll be main-
tained in the proposed project.
10. A landscape and irrigation plai
for,the
project shall be prepared by a
licensed
landscape architect. The landscape
plan
shall integrate and phase the
installation
of landscaping with the propos
d construc-
tion schedule. (Prior to occu
ancy, the
licensed architect shall certl
y to the
Planning Department that the 1
ndscaping
has been installed in accordan
a with the
prepared plan).
i
11. The landscape plan shall be subject
to
the review of the Parks, Beaches,
and
Recreation Department and appr
val of the.
Planning Department.
I'
12. The landscape plan shall inclu
e a main-
tenance program which controls
the use of.
•
fertilizers and pesticides.
13. The landscape plan shall place
heavy
emphasis on the use of droughtl-
resistant
native vegetation and be irrigated
via a
system designed to avoid surface
runoff
and overwatering.
I
14. That landscaping be provided in
accordance
with the Corporate Plaza P -C Text,
to wits
"That parking lots shall be
screened
from view or have the view
interrupted
by landscaping and /or fencing
from
access streets and adjacent
properties.`
The proposed landscape plan of
the Corporate
Plaza complex shall be revieweii
by a
licensed landscape architect.
The.existing
landscape program should also
modified
to include the concerns of Con
itions 12
and 13 to the maximum extent p
acticable
that can maintain the characte
of the pro -
posed landscape program. Any
hange(s) in
the existing program as a resu
t of this
review should be phased and i
orporated
•
as a portion of the.proposed r
vised land-
scape plan and maintenance program.
I
-7-
COMMISSIONERS July 10, 1980 MINUTES
5 V" I � °City of Newport, Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
15. Development of .the.si.te shall be subject to
a grading permit to be approved by the
Building and Planning Departments.
16. That a grading plan, if required, shall
include.a complete plan for temporary and
permanent drainage facilities, to minimize
any potential impacts from silt, debris, and
other water pollutants. .
17. The grading permit shall include, if required
a description of haul routes, access points
to the site and a watering and sweeping pro-
gram designed to minimize impacts of haul
operation.
18. An erosion and dust control plan, if required
shall be submitted and be subject to the
approval of the Building Department.
19. That an erosion and siltation control plan,
if required, be approved by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board- Santa
Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to
said Board ten days prior to any construction
activities.
20. Prior to the issuance of any .building permits
for the site, the applicants shall demonstrat
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 Sani-
tation District No. 5.
21. That prior to the occupancy of any building,
the applicant shall provide written verifi-
cation from Orange County Sanitation District'
No. 5 that adequate sewer capacity is avaiia-
ble to serve the project.
22. That the conditions of Resubdivision No. 465
be completed and that bond amounts deposited
for the East Coast Highway and Avocado
Avenue improvements be increased to reflect
current prices.
MM
•
•
vggv1133"NEN.3 July 10, 1980
City of Newaort Beach
MINUTES
23. That Avocado Avenue improvements between
San Miguel Drive and East Coast Highway
be completed to the width determined to be
necessary to handle the two -wa traffic
projected from the development, plus other
approved projects. This shall provide,
width necessary for turning lanes and pockets
24. That a traffic signal be insta led at San
Miguel Drive and MacArthur Bou]Ievard.
i
25. That a radius corner cutoff beldedicated at
the northwesterly corner of Neoport Center
Drive and Coast Highway in accordance with
the requirements of the PubliclWorks Depart-
ment.
26. That the applicant shall execu a an agreement
providing for dedication to th City, at no
cost, of the right -of -way needed across the
• two service station sites.for tiltimate
widening of the northerly side of Coast.
Highway at Jamboree Road. The agreement
shall provide that the area tolbe dedicated
may continue to be occupied and used by the
present lessees until notifica n by the
City that the right -of -way is eeded; and
that the City shall be respons'ble for relo-
cation and /or reconstruction o existing
improvements such as pump isla ds, curbs,
sidewalks, etc.
•
2I7. That the sum of $54,000 be pro ided for
circulation and traffic improvoments to
intersections as specified on age 4, Table
of the Traffic Report dated Ma ch 20, 1980,
as shown on the City's Master glan of Circu-
lation consistent with the Genoral Plan, wit]
priority given to improvements within the
vicinity of the project, if feasible.
-9-
INDEX
hoX6V
ow 7C T/1
July 10, 1980
71
MINUTES
Item #2
Request to consider.a Traffic Study for a TRAFFIC
proposed 24,000 sq. ft. t office - retail building, S'T'UDY FOR
and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. OFFICE-
RETAIL
AND BUILD=,
IN MARIMM'
Request to permit the construction of a three - MILE
story retail - office complex in the Mariners'
Mile Specific Plan Area that exceeds the basic CONTINUED
height limit within the 26/35 Foot Height Limi- TO AUXW
tation District. The approval of a use permit 21, 1980
is also required inasmuch as the project exceeds
the 0.5 times the buildable area of the site. and
LOCATION: A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, Item #3
located at 2912 West Coast Highway,
on the northerly side of West Coast USE PERMIT
Highway, westerly of Riverside N0. 1941
Avenue.
ZONE: SP -5 CONTINUED
TO AUGURrmh
APPLICANT: F. Earl Mellott; A.I.A., Anaheim 21, 1980
OWNER: Said Shokrian, Newport Beach
Agenda Items 2 and 3 were heard concurrently
because of their relationship.
Staff advised that a letter of opposition to the
proposed project had been received from Mrs.
Carrie Slayback. Copies of the subject letter
were previously provided to the Planning Commis-
sion.
The Continued Public Hearing resumed in connec-
tion with this item and Earl Mellott, Applicant,
appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf
of the Owner. 'Mr. Mellott presented renderings
of the proposed project and advised that they
are requesting permission to construct a 35 -f6ot
high building in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation
District, and to develop the property at a ratio
of 0.78 x the buildable area, rather than 0.5
x the buildable area as allowed in the Mariners'
Mile Specific Area Plan. •
-10-
)MMISSICN�IERS Ruly 10, 1980
I City
v of Newport Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 1 I INDEX
E
•
Mr. Mellott felt that the project
Approved for the following reasons
1. The added height would provide
better structure on high -price
2. They could build an architec
building if allowed to build
rather than two stories;
3. Marine- oriented establishments
given first choice of leasing
Mr. Mellott advised that he spoke
the homeowners groups in the area
in detail the building proposal.
the homeowners groups said that th
building, but would oppose same be
eral principles. Mr: Mellott adde
the front and rear of the proposed
be attractive and that the air con
would be on the ground, rather tha
of the structure.
Commissioner Balalis questioned wh
Mellott had considered the possibi
the building around and situating.
back on the property closer to Avo:
rather than Coast Highway, so that
would not be blocking the view as i
people on the hill.
Mr. Mellott answered that he had no
that possibility, but commented tha
the Owner and he prefer to keep the
closer to the street.. He also comm
such a relocation may affect the le
the office space.
Commissioner Balalis then sugges
relocation may be considered pref
as the traffic noise from Pacifi
would be alleviated. .
Pat Strang appeared before the P
sion on behalf of the Newport He
Association and stated that the
sion has received a letter from
-11-
be
hem with a
property;
ly- superior
e stories,
be
space.
th all of
d explained
stated that
liked the
use of gen-
that both
uilding wouli
tioning units
on the roof
her Mr.
ty of turn€
me farther
Street,
he building
ch from
t considered
t ordinarily
buildings
anted that
asibility of
that such a
le inasmuch
ast Highway
g Commis
Community
ng Commis -
at lists.
Motion
Ayes
Absent
July 10, 1980
11
1 01 City of Newwrt Beach
X
MINUTES
the Association's major objections to this pro-
posal. She then reiterated the two major.con-
cerns of the Association as follows:
1. The project will cause traffic to be genera-
ted through the Newport Heights residential
area.
2. The Newport Heights Community Association
is of the opinion that the project does not
meet the criteria as specified in the
Specific Area Plan for exceeding the 0.5 x
buildable area (i.e., that construction on
a site in Mariners' Mile may exceed the
allowable 0.5 x the buildable area up to a
maximum of 1.0 x the buildable area for the
development of marine- oriented uses.) She
stated that although the Applicant intends
to give preferential leasing to establish-
ments that are marine- oriented, there is no
specific business that this building is
being developed for.
Planning Commission discussed the project in
question and was of the opinion,that the project
should not be approved in its presently- proposed
state for reasons which included the followings
1. The project would cause an unacceptable
amount of traffic to travel through the
Newport Heights residential district.
2. No justification had been made for exceeding
the height limit.
3. The proposed project's substantial volume,
bulkness, and density was unacceptable.
Mr. Mellott indicated willingness to work with
the Planning Department Staff and /or Planning
Commission in revising the building plans, and
agreed to a continuance of this matter to the
meeting of August 21, 1980 to allow time for
plan revision.
Motion was made to continue Agenda Items 2 and
3 to the Planning Commission meeting of
August 21, 1980, which motion carried.
-12-
INDEX
•
COMMISSIONERS suly lo, 198o
I
City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
ROLLCALLI 111 1111
IINDEX
•
•
Request to consider a Traffic
Posed 15,700 sq. ft. ± office
and the acceptance of an Envi
AND
for a pro -
building,
al Document.
Request to permit the construction f a two -
'story commercial building located ii the
Mariners' Mile Specific Plan Area.
LOCATION: A portion of Lot A, T
located at 2244 West
on the northerly side
easterly of Tustin Av
Mariners' Mile.
LONE: SP -5
APPLICANT: Rudy Baron
OWNER: Richardson Trust, et al
No. 919,
t Highway, .
the street,
on
., Santa Ana
Agenda Items 4 and 5 were heard concurrently
because of their relationship.
In answer to a question posed by Commissioner
Allen, Planning Director Hewicker advised that
it has been determined that there would be no
6onflict between what is being proposed by the
Applicant in this case and the.Loca Coastal
Flan activity that is currently.goi g on with
the Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee.
the public hearing was opened in co
this item and.Rudy Baron, Applicant
before the.Planning Commission and
tie had read the staff report and ha
.concerning same.
P'or the benefit of the homeowners r
the project in question, Commission
questioned whether the Applicant wo
to a 31 -foot flagpole, rather than
fllatpole being proposed.
Mr. Baron advised that he would
to a 31 -foot flagpole.
-13-
tion with
vised that
no comments
ding above
Allen
object
40 -foot .
no obj
•-
M
PLAN
W NO.
Motion
Ayes
Absent
Ix
m
a my5 F>
7 N ]C
July 10, 1980
W
Beach
There being no others desiring to appear and
be heard on Agenda Items 4-and 5, the public
hearing was closed.
MINUTES
Motion was made that Planning Commission approve
the Environmental Document and the Traffic.
Study with the following findings:
1. 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 -11 and
2. 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" streets.
INDEX
Motion Motion was made that Planning Commission approve
Ayes x 1+1x1 x Site Plan Review No. 25 with the following •
Absent x x findings and conditions:
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed development is a high - quality
proposal and will not adversely affect the
benefits of occupancy and use of existing
properties within the area.
2. The proposed development does not adversely
affect the public benefits derived from the
expenditures of public funds for improve-
ment and beautification of street and public
facilities within the area.
3. The proposed development meets the intent
and purpose of the Mariners' Mile Specific
Plan Area and further, conforms substantiall3
with all applicable development standards
as specified in Chapter 20.62 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code. .
4. The.proposed development promotes the
maintenance of superior site location char-
acteristics adjoining major thoroughfares
of City -wide importance.
5. The project will not have any significant
environmental impact.
-14-
U
`J
. .
Jfuly 10, 1980
of Newport Beach
G. Adequate parking spaces and rel
vehicular circulation will be p
conjunction with the proposed d
gONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in su
conformance with the approved p
floor plan, and elevations, exc
below.
21. That all mechanical equipment a
areas shall be screened from We
Highway and adjoining propertie
31. That all signs shall meet the r
of the Sign Code.
4 That a minimum of one (1) parki
for each 250 sq. ft. of floor a
(1) offstreet loading space sha
vided for each 10;000 sq. ft. o
floor area.
5. That all improvement be constru
quired by ordinance and the Pub
Department.
6. That 12' of additional right -of
dedicated for street and highwa
on the northerly side of West C
T. That any unused drive approach
and replaced with curb, gutter,,
walk; and that a 10' wide sidew
structed along the West Coast H
frontage. All improvements are
completed under an encroachment
issued by the California Departs
Transportation.
8. That a standard subdivision agri
surety be provided to guarantee
factory completion of the public
ments, if it is desired to obta:
permit prior to completion of t]
improvements.
9; That an additional easement widt
be dedicated for utility purpos(
to the existing easement along i
property line.
MINUTES
ovided in
velopment.
stantial
of plan,
pt as noted
9 trash
t Coast
;Iuirements
space
a and one
be pro -
retail
as re-
works
ay be
purposes
st Highway.
removed
nd side
—
k be con -
hway
o be
ermit
nt of
ment and
he 'satis-
improve -
a buildi.i
of 5 feet
adjacent
easterly
COMMISSIONERS July 10, 1980
aRWI
� ow ,1( 1 City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
M
10. That conveyance of storm drain easement
previously condemned by the City along the
northerly portion of the property be
completed in a manner to be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.
11. That improvements to be constructed over
the easements located along the northerly
and easterly property lines be limited to
paving, curbs, walkways, non - masonry walls,
ground cover, and low shrubs. The plans
and installation for improvements and.land-
scaping in the easement areas shall be
subject to approval by the Public Works
Department. A masonry wall may be installer
if desired, along the northerly line of the
easement along the northerly property line.
An encroachment agreement shall be entered
into by the property owner and the City
covering the improvements in the easements;
and providing that the property owner, will
be responsible for restoration of any sur-
face improvements which are disturbed for
purposes of maintenance, operation, or
replacement of the facilities in the ease-
ments. This agreement shall be recorded an<
run with the land.
12. The following disclosure statement of the
City of Newport Beach's policy regarding
the Orange County Airport shall be included
in all leases or sub - leases for space in
the project and shall be included in any
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
which may be recorded against the property.
Disclosure Statement.
The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors
and assigns acknowledge that:
a) The Orange County 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 Orange County
Airport.
-16-
•
COMMISSIONERS 4uly 10, 1980
FflER a s City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
c) The City of Newport Beach
to oppose additional. comet
service expansions at the
Airport;
continue
1 air
ge County
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 Orange County Airport.
13. Should any resources be uncovered during
construction, that a qualified archaeolog
or paleontologist evaluate the site prior
to completion of construction etivities,
and in accordance with City Po icies K -6
and K -7.
14. .Final design of the project sh ll provide
• for the incorporation of water saving
devices for project lavatories and other
11111111 .
water -using facilities.
15. The final design of the projects shall pro-
vide for the sorting of recyclable material
from other solid waste.
16. The applicants shall provide for weekly,
vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas
and drives.
ih. A landscape and irrigation plan for the
project shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect.
18. The landscape plan shall be su ject to the
review of the Parks, Beaches, a d Recrea-
tion Department and approval of the
Planning Department. 1
19. The landscape plan shall include a main-
tenance program which controls the use of
fertilizers and pesticides.
26. The landscape plan shall place lie avy emphai
• on the use of drought- resistant native
vegetation and be irrigated via a system
designed to avoid surface runoff and over-
watering.
-17-
'IMIJJ1CJIVtKJ July 10, 1980
x
X City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL INDEX... 1.
21. That .a grading plan, if required, shall
include a complete plan for temporary and
permanent drainage facilities, to minimize
any potential impacts from silt, debris,
and other water pollutants.
22. The grading permit, shall include, if
required, a description of haul routes,
access points to the site and a watering
and sweeping program designed to minimize
impacts of haul operations.
23. An erosion and dust control plan, if
required, shall be submitted and be'sub
ject. to the approval of the Building
Department.
24. That an erosion and siltation control plan,
if required, be approved by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board--
Santa Ana Region, and the plan be submitted
to said Board ten days prior to any.con-
struction activities.
25. The.project shall be so designed to elimin-
ate light and glare spillage on adjacent
residential uses.
26. The proposed project shall be so designed,
so as to provide sound attenuation between
uses and from highway - associated noise.
27.. That the proposed office uses on.the site
shall be limited to personal and profes-
sional services which are offered to the
general public.
28. that the proposed flagpole not exceed 31
feet in, height.
-18-
•
rl
ROLL
•
•
July 10, 1980
57n
t Beach
!Request to permit the construction
land a portion of a driveway and wa
the permitted six -foot height limi
a required four - foot.side yard set
maximum height of twenty -three fee
;grade, and to permit the driveway
to exceed the three -foot height li
,the required ten -foot front yard s
a maximum height of sixteen feet t
in conjunction with a six -unit res
apartment complex to be developed
(LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Resubdivis
located at 2501 Ocean
at the most - southerly
of Carnation Avenue in
Mar.
ZONE: R -3
APPLICANT: 'Carl Quandt, Newport
OWNER: Same as Applicant
!Planning Director Hewicker advised
;Modifications Committee has referri
to the Planning Commission for orii
imination since it was felt that the
tion involves a fair amount of con-
!therefore, should be acted upon at
Commission level. It was noted th+
Municipal Code provides that where
!cations Committee feels that an ap]
volves sufficient controversy or t]
cation is of sufficient import tha-
extraordinary, that the Committee ]
tunity to refer the application to
Commission for determination.
;Staff clarified that this applicat
:approval of a modification to perm
lstruction of a sidewalk and a port
;driveway and wall to exceed the 6'
within the 4' side yard setback to
.height of 23 * above grade and to
-19-
MINUTES
of a sidewalk
1 to exceed
within
ack to a
t above
nd a wall
it within
tback to
above grade,
the site.
No. 274,
Corona del
that the
d this item
inal deter-
s applica
roversy and,
the Planning
.t the
the Modifi-
lication in-
at the appli-
.it is
as the oppor-
the Planning
.on requests
.t the con -
.on of a
height limit
a maximum
lermit the
NO.
Roll
July 10, 1980
I ii W>
i N y City of Newport Beach
MINUTES.
driveway and a wall to exceed the 3' height
limit within the 10' front yard setback to
a maximum of 16' t above grade in conjunction
with a 6 -unit apartment complex on a steeply -
sloped lot. Staff advised that this.application
is for consideration of the modification from
the City Zoning Code only. -- not for review or
approval of the entire project.
Planning Director Hewicker relayed that the
Applicant and Architect have made every effort
to design a .project that will fit the terrain
and fit the steep topography of the site.
Because of the unusual topography and its
steepness, and because of the need for vehicular
access to the building, it is necessary that
there be certain structures built in the side -
yard and in the frontyard to support the main
building. Further, in light of the fact that
the topography drops off quite steeply, and
the fact that the driveway can only be of a
certain gradient in order to allow vehicular
access down to the building, it is also neces-
sary that those structures be of .a height .
higher than normally found on at level site. In
view of the foregoing, a modification is being
requested.
.Commissioner Beek stated that this irregularly -
shaped parcel of land was created in 1969 as a
result of a resubdivision that divided a larger
piece of land into two parcels.. He further
stated that at the time the resubdivision was
being considered, the landowner indicated that
the resubdivision was being requested so as.to
enable him to develop both lots with single -
family residences, and that he intended to live
in one of the residences. Commissioner Beek
advised that at that time the Planning: Commis-
sion queried whether the landowner would like
to have the property rezoned R- l,.but that the
landowner indicated that he would prefer for
the property to remain R -3. Since the unusual
parcel was created at the Applicant's request,
it was Commissioner Beek's opinion that should
-20-
r1
LJ
• I
CC)MMISSIONER5
July lo, 1980
City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL
INDEX
the Planning Commission desire to
i
I
ndorse R -3'
usage of the property, that it sho
ld only be
done in the event the two parcels
re resub-
divided back into one parcel and t
en developed
as a single project.'
The Public Hearing was opened in connection
with this item and Alvin Howard, attorney,
appeared before the Planning Commi$sion
on
.behalf of the Applicant. In response
to
Commissioner Beek's comments conce
ning the
resubdivision of the subject prope
ty, Mr.
Howard indicated that when this to
was resub-
divided, Mr. Quandt had intended t
live there
.and still does intend to live ther
However,
a change of economic conditions ha
made it
unsuitable for a single - family res
dence.
'
Mr. Howard also offered that at th
hearing on
the resubdivision, it was decided
y the approp-
riate City officials that the prop
rty would
remain R -3. Mr. Howard then commuted
that
Section 21.81.020 of the Municipalll,Code
pro- .
vides that where a strict interpretlation
of
Title 20 would preclude 'a reasonab
a use of
property, that this type of modifi
ation should
be granted. He added that a modif
cation is
needed in this case because of the
extreme
steepness of the lot and the need
o achieve
access from the street level to th
garage level.
Mr. Giddings, Architect, appeared :
Planning Commission and reviewed r,
which delineated the project as it
the topography of the site. Durin
of his presentation, Mr. Giddings 1
that the proposed driveway locatioi
only way to gain access from the s,
property and commented further tha
access to this property through thq
there is nothing that can be done i
land.
-21-
efore the
nderings
relates to
the course
is the
eet to the
without
driveway,
th'the
COMMISSIONERS
�x
a
July 10, 1980 MINUTES
of . Newport .Beach
ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX
Richard Millar, attorney, appeared before the
Planning Commission on behalf of his clients,
Robert Sprague-(owner of .the apartment house
to the northwest) and.William and Mrs. Hubbs
(owners of the property immediately above the
site,). He advised.that. his ' associate attended
the Modifications Committee,meeting and that
his associate relayed to:him that.,one of the
reasons this matter was being referred to the
Planning Commission wasbecause it was felt
that sufficient information had not been.pro-
vided by the Applicant, in a project of such
controversy, to enable the Committee to approve
same. Mr. Millar then relayed his clients'
concerns with the effect on views from the
surrounding properties and the effect of the
driveway insofar as the traffic lights at night
and the noise. Mr. Millar then brought notice
to the location of the proposed driveway as it
relates to the Hubbs' bedroom window, and
voiced concern that the traffic generated
from a project of this density would continually
pass in front of the bedroom window of the
Hubbs. It was Mr. Millar's contention that this
would be a severe detriment to the use and
enjoyment of the Hubbs' home. Although Mr.
Millar had no alternate proposal to offer, he
felt that if the property were developed as a
single - family residence, that perhaps a more -
desirable driveway configuration could be
accomplished.
Planning Director Hewicker announced that.
the Applicant had just provided him with a
Noise Impact Analysis on the adjacent residences
that was performed by the Jack G...Raub Company.
Copies of the subject.Analysis were then
distributed to the Planning Commissioners and
to Mr.. Millar,
Planning Director Hewicker then reviewed the
renderings of the project, focusing on vehicular
access to.the site. Mr. Hewicker.pointed. out
that in this particular plan, the Applicant'
has attempted to.keep the driveway on the high
side of the property. Since the topography
drops off from .east to west, if the Applicant
were to situate.the driveway on the west side,
it would be even higher.above grade than on the
east side.
-22-
•
•
COMMISSIONERS1 July 10, 1980
a� �a
y . City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
1 ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I INDEX
Ross Maxwell, associate of Mr. Giddings,
appeared before the Planning Commis ion and
clarified 'that the proposed drivewa ,at its
point closest to the Hubbs' bedroom indow,
would be located 121 to 13' away fr the window
and 8,16" lower than the window.
i
Ralph Paige, 2525 Ocean Boulevard (Channel Reef
condominium unit owner), appeared before the
Planning Commission and stated his opposition
to the project for the following reasons:
1. He felt that the building would bstruct
the view of the residents of Cha nel Reef;
and that the proposed driveway a d wall
will completely obstruct the vie from the
he
exterior walkway on t east si a of the
Channel Reef building;
• 2. He felt that vehicles utilizing the driveway
will generate considerable noise because
of the steepness of the incline.
Michael Chulman, 2525 Ocean Boulevard, Apt. E -2
(Channel Reef condominium unit owner), appeared
before the Planning Commission and relayed his
opposition to the project for reaso s as follows:
1• He felt that the subject proper is too
small for a 6 -unit apartment ho se;
2. He was concerned with the degree) of noise
that will be created by the steep driveway;
3. He was concerned that an elevator is not
being planned to carry the tenants from
the ground to the street level. without
an elevator, Mr. Chulman felt that more
people would be forced to drive in and out
of the project;
4'• He felt that the traffic generat d by the
project would further congest Oc an Boule
5, He felt the view from the Channel Reef
pool /recreation area would be ob tructed;
• 6, He felt the project would decrea a the
value of his property; I
-23-
f
COMMISSIONERS I July 10, 1980
City Of
MINUTES
INDEX
Tom Phillips, 2525 East.Ocean Boulevard (Channel
Reef condominium unit owner) appeared before
the Planning Commission and concurred with
the comments of Mr. Paige. Mr. Phillips then
voiced concern with the magnitude of the devel-
opment proposed for such a small piece of
property. Further, Mr.'Phillips voiced his
opinion that although the R =3 zone would allow
the Applicant to develop more than six units
on the site, he feels that the only reason
the Applicant is not proposing the maximum
density allowable is because of the constraints
imposed by the driveway situation. Mr. Phillips.
then voiced concern with the proposed 16' wall
and questioned what the height of same would
be when a guardrail is installed.
Staff clarified that when the staff, report
speaks of the driveway and wall, the wall is
the guardrail. Staff pointed out that the •
wall was measured from grade to the top of the
guardrail.
In response to a question by the Planning
Commission, Staff advised that the purposes
of the wall are as. follows:
1.. Safety;
2. Sound Attenuation; and
3. To shield the light from vehicle headlights.
In response to a question posed by the
Planning Commission, Mr. Giddings responded
that he doesn't think that people will drive
at a speed of over 15 MPH on the driveway;
however,: Mr. Giddings indicated that they
would install speed breaks in the driveway if
speed ever became .a problem,
Commissioner Beek expressed concern that the
Planning Commission was not provided with copies
of the Jack G. Raub Company report earlier so
as to allow the Commissioners time to investigate
same. He then stated that he is astonished
that such low sound levels are predicted in the
Noise Analysis in view of the 168 slope of the '
-24-
July 10, 1980 MINUTES
'Jtv of Newport Beach
driveway. Commissioner Beek indica ed his
belief that traveling in and out of the proposed
driveway at any speed would be nois and
indicated that he could not find thB predictions
specified in the Analysis credible intil the
report could be investigated and th sources
for the findings revealed.
I
Planning Commission discussed the l vel of noise
anticipated to occur at the adjacen• residence
and questioned whether the 37 dBA level mention-
ed in the Noise Impact Analysis too into
consideration the gradient of the d iveway.
in response to a question posed by
Commission, Mr. Giddings responded
Noise Impact Analysis, the noise lei
tion of 37 dBA was referenced to thi
property, which is the closest prop%
project.
=he Planning
that in the
iel predic-
Hubbs'
;rty to the
• Commissioner Allen requested the Ciity's
Environmental Coordinator's opinionlas to
whether the 37 dBA figure had been calculated
with the assumption of the ramp, i
•
Environmental Coordinator Talarico ppeared
before the Planning Commission and tated that
he just received a copy of the subj ct report
and, therefore, has not had an oppo ligures tunity to
review it. However, from a cursory look,
Mr. Talarico commented that if the
that the Jack G. Raub Company have resented
are correct and the assumptions use for pre-
paring them are correct, then therejwould not
necessarily be a significant noise 0.mpact.
Planning Commission then, discussed
bility of adding a Condition of App:
would provide that the interior noi .
of the Hubbs' residence not exceed
Inasmuch as an actual noise measures
not be obtained until after actual i
of the driveway had taken place, P1i
Commission discussed the difficulty
the level of noise in the event the
level was not obtained.
-25-
the possi-
roval which .
ae level
15 dBA.
nent could
;onstruction
inning
of reducing
45 dBA noise
INDEX
COMMISS►ONERSI July lo, i9so MINUTES
A
hCU
of New Wt Beach
ROLL CALL
MMA
INDEX
Mr. Giddings advised that he has little personal
doubt about the accuracy of the Analysis
inasmuch as the Jack G. Raub Company has been
their engineering consultant on this job for .
over a year and hence are familiar with the`
project. ;Mr. Giddings then noted that the
Jack G.. Raub Company is probably one of the,
most highly- respected engineering companies in
Orange County.
Mr. Howard stated that they do not believe
the noise level will be objectionable but
expressed willingness to abide by whatever
Conditions the Planning Commission imposes
because without this modification, the lot
will remain vacant. Mr. Howard added that he
believes that the Condition of Approval in
question would be impractical and voiced his
opinion that.the Noise 'Impact Analysis is a
reliable report that should be accepted.
Motion
x
Motion was made that Modification No. 2552 be •
approved with the findings and conditions as
specified in Exhibit A of the staff report.
Motion
x
Amended motion was made that an additional
Condition of Approval be added which would
require that the interior noise level in the
existing residence be mitigated down to 45 dBA
with the windows open.
Commissioners Balalis and Haidinger commented
that it is a normal procedure to accept the
opinion of experts in situations.of this
nature.
Commissioner Beek expressed his opinion that
such a Condition of Approval would be meaning-
less for the following reasons: 1) Commissioner
Beek felt that it would be difficult to measure
the dBA in the Hubbs' bedroom with the traffic
being so sporadic; and 2) Commissioner Beek felt
that if the noise level exceeded the 45 dBA
level, that nothing could be done to lower the
dBA. In such an event, Commissioner Beek felt
that the project would be approved post facto.
•
-26-
A
COMMISSIONERS) suiy lo, 1980 MINUTES
M
ROLL CALL INDEX
Ayes x Commissioner Allen's motion was voted on and
Noes x x x x failed.
Absent x x
Motion x Amended motion was made:that a second Condition
of Approval be added to the Conditions of
Approval as follows:
"That approval shall be contingention the
Applicant presenting material to he
Staff which demonstrates to the S aff's
satisfaction that the 37 dBA is c lculated
with the assumption of the ramp, nd not
assuming a level grade. Further, that a
Noise Impact Report be submitted o the
Staff indicating what the mitigat on factors
are."
I( I I I I I Commissioner Beek voiced his opin
decision of this importance and u
• should be decided by the Planning
And not referred to Staff.
Commissioner Balalis voiced his con
the Staff and their ability to revi
material and make the proper decisi
Motion x Substitute motion was made that thi
continued for two weeks. Commissio
Advised that such a continuance wou
time to obtain additional informati
lack G. Raub Company; further, Comm
.Allen relayed that Mr. Quandt had i
previously that he feels he could s
the problems with the adjacent home
their Association boards.
I�
U
Mr. Howard reappeared before the P1
Commission and stated that they hav
come to agreement with the Channel
Association. He added, however, th
received a letter prior to tonight'
saying that the Channel Reef'Associ
not come to terms with them and ask
provided with further plans.
-27-
that a
eness
mission
idence in
w the
n.
item be
er Allen
d allow
n from the
ssioner
dicated
lve some of
wners and
tried to
he
meeting
ion could
to be
COMMISSIONERS
x
July 10, 1980 MINUTES
of Newport Beach
INDEX
Roy Anderson, Vice President of the,Channel
Reef Association, appeared.before the Planning
Commission and stated that Mr. Quandt's pro -,
posal. was submitted to the Association last
Monday. At that time the Applicant requested
approval of the entire project; however; a
determination could not be made at that time
since only the Board of Directors of the
Association were present'and they could not
speak for the entire Association membership.
Mr. Anderson stated, however, that in the letter
provided to Mr. Howard, the Board of Directors
indicated that they were going to call a
special meeting of the Association and that
at that meeting it can be decided whether or
not the Association desires to approve the
project.
Commissioner Allen withdrew her motion for
continuance. •
Commissioner Haidinger's amended motion was
voted on and carried.
Commissioner Beek announced that he would not
support Commissioner McLaughlin's motion for
conditional approval of Modification No. 2552
since the Applicant created the unusual parcel,
and resulting development hardship, himself as
a result of a,resubdivision back in 1969.
Commissioner Beek felt that Mr. Quandt. and the
Hubbs should request a resubdivision to merge
the two parcels back into one parcel, and
then develop same as a single project.
Commissioner McLaughlin's original motion, as
modified by the passage of Commissioner Haidin-
ger's motion which added a second Condition of
Approval, was then voted on and carried. By
virtue of the passage of Commissioner McLaugh-
lin's motion, Modification No. 2552 was approved
with the following findings and conditions:
-28-
is
COMMISSIONERS July 10, 1980 MINUTES
a �D
N Cit y of Newport Beach
ROIL CALL INDEX
FINDINGS:
1.. That the proposed development is a logical
use of the property that would a precluded '.
under the normal zoning requir nts of
the District.
i
2. That the proposed development is. a good
design solution to the irregularly- shaped
and steeply - sloped lot.
i
3. That the design of the proposed driveway
and wall will effectively shield the
adjacent residences from vehicular lights
and noise.
4:. That the proposed sidewalk, driveway and
walls will not obstruct any views from
the adjacent residential proper y.
• 5. That the proposed sidewalk, dri eway and
walls exceeding the permitted h ights within
the side and front yard setbacks will not
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 detrime tal or
injurious to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or the general welfare of
the City and further that the proposed
modification is consistent with the legis-
lative intent of Title 20 of the Code.
I CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan,
sections and elevations. I
2. That approval shall be cont'inge t on the
Applicant presenting material tc the Staff
which demonstrates to the Staff's satis-
faction that the 37 dBA is calculated with
the assumption of the ramp,and rot assuming
a level grade. Further, that a Noise Impact
Report be submitted to the Staff indicating
what the mitigation factors area
• I
-29-
i
7 N 'JC I 7
July 10, 1980
M
Beach
MINUTES
Request to permit the construction of a two- USE PERMIT
story residential condominium development in NO. 1937
conjunction with a commercial office project
located in the C -1 District,. and the acceptance APPR M
of an Environmental Document. CCNDI-
TIONALLY
AND
Request to resubdivide' property ' for condominium
purposes in conjunction with a combined resi-
dential- commercial office development in the
C -1 District.
LOCATION: Lot 7, Tract No. 1136, located at
326 Newport Boulevard, on the
easterly side of Newport Boulevard,
norterly of 'Catalina Drive, adjacent
to Newport Heights.
ZONE: C -1 -H
APPLICANT: Morris M. Desatoff, Newport Beach
OWNERS: Keith W. Clark and Bill Rietsch,
Costa Mesa
ENGINEERS: Morris Engineering, Tustin
Agenda Items 7 and 8 were heard concurrently
because of their relationship.
The public hearing was opened in connection
with this item and Morris Desatoff, Applicant
and project Engineer, appeared before the
Planning and advised that he had read the staff
report and that they can meet the recommendatio
specified therein.
Commissioner Beek brought notice to the 16'
retaining wall that forms the back of the
garage. Specifically, in light of the closeness
of the wall to Holmwood Drive, Commissioner Beek
questioned whether any geology studies or
studies on how secure that wall will be have bees
completed.
-30-
NO.
•.
F- -I
L J
Motion
Ayes
Noes
Absent
E
El
(05`o COW
X
7 N X N
x
July 10, 1980
M
t Beach
MINUTES
Mr. Desatoff replied that a Soils Engineer
will be retained for that purpose and a Founda-
tion Engineer retained to design he founda-
tion following approval of this r quest.
There being no others desiring tojappear and
be heard on Agenda Items 7 and 8,1the public
hearing was closed. j
Motion was made that Planning
Use Permit No. 1937 with than f
and conditions:
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed use is con,
the Land Use Element of.the
and is compatible with Burro,
2. That the project will not ha
cant environmental impact.
3. The project will comply with
City and State Building Code
requirements for new buildin,
to the district.in which the
ject is located.
INDEX
ission approve
wing findings
f
stent with /
neral Plan i
ding land uses.
any signifi-
11 applicable
and zoning
applicable
roposed pro-
4. The project lot size conformslto the zoning
Code area requirements.
i
5. That each of the proposed unilts has been
designed as a condominium with separate and
individual utility connection_
6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1937 will
not, under the circumstances of this case,.
be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort and general welfare of
persons residing and working in the neigh-
borhood or be detrimental or injurious to
property and improvements in the neighborhooc
or the general welfare of thejCity.
CONDITIONS: j
• 1. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan,
floor plans and elevations except as noted
below:
-31-
�i
July 10, 1980
Of
Beach
s
2. That submitted plans be modified so as to
remove the second -story eave projection
into the Holmwood Drive right -of -way.
3. That appropriate access to the office area
be provided for the handicapped.
MINUTES
4. That each third floor residential unit
shall have two means of access to the ground
as required by the Uniform Building Code.'
Construction shall also meet all other pro-
visions of the Uniform Building Code -
1976 Edition.
5. The following disclosure statement of the
City of Newport Beach.'s policy regarding
the Orange County Airport shall be included
in all leases or sub - leases for space in the
project and shall be included in any Cove-
nants, Conditions, and Restrictions which
may be recorded against the property.
Disclosure Statement
The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors
and assigns acknowledge that:
a) The Orange County 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 Orange County
Airport:
c) The City of Newport Beach may continue
to oppose additional commercial air .
service expansions at the Orange County
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 Orange County Airport.
-32-
INDEX
•
COMMISSIONERS July 10, 1980
m
Im 3 3 J�C lb
x I =
{Q City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
Y
1 ROIL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I INDEX
6. Should any resources be uncover d during
construction, that a qualified rchaeologist
or paleontologist evaluate the ite prior to
completion of construction acti ities,.and
in accordance with City Policie K -6 and
K -7.
7. Final design of the project shall provide
for the incorporation of water- aving
devices for project lavatories $nd other
water -using facilities.
8. The final design of the office project shall
provide for the sorting of recyclable ma-
terial from other solid waste.
9. The applicant shall.provide for weekly
vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas
and drives. I
• 10. A landscape and irrigation plan for the
project shall be prepared by a icensed
landscape architect.
•
11. The landscape plan shall be sub ect to the
review of the Parks, Beaches, a d Recrea-
tion Department and approval of the Planning
Department.
12. The landscape plan shall includ+ a mainten-
ance program which controls theluse of
fertilizers and pesticides. I
13.. The landscape plan shall place 4eavy
emphasis on the use of drought - esistant
native vegetation and be irrigaed via a
system designed to avoid surfac runoff
and overwatering.
14. That a grading plan, if require , shall
include a complete plan for tem orary and
permanent drainage facilities t minimize
any potential impacts from silt, debris,
and other water pollutants.
-33-
COMMISSIONERS
IF 5 W W N 7
July 10, 1980
Of
Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
15. The grading permit, if required, shall
include a description of haul routes,
access points to the site, and a watering
and sweeping program designed to minimize
impacts of haul operations.
16. An erosion and dust control plan, if
required, shall be submitted and be subject
to the approval of the Building Department.
17. An erosion and siltation control plan, if
required, shall be approved by the Cali-
fornia Regional Water Quality Control
Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan
be submitted to said Board ten days prior
to any construction activities.
18. The project shall be so designed to
eliminate light and glare spillage on
adjacent residential uses.
19. The proposed project shall be so designed
so as to provide sound attenuation between
uses and from highway- associated noise.
20. That all signs shall meet the requirements
of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code as
specified for the C -1 District.
21. That two garage spaces shall be provided
for each dwelling unit.
22. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1937
shall be contingent on the approval of
Resubdivision No. 660 and subject to all
conditions contained therein.
Motion was made that Planning Commission approve
Resubdivision No. 660 with the following
findings and conditions:
x
FINDINGS:
1. That the maps meet the requirements of
Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code, all ordinances of the City, all
applicable General or Specific Plans, and
the Planning Commission is satisfied with
the plan of subdivision.
-34-
•
COMMISSIONEKS July lo, 1980
City of Newport Beach
ROIL CALL
-35-
MINUTES
nts
t.
as
completed
curb,
and
accompany-
ee the
blic
record
n of the
grade
th
the Public
along
property.
No. 660
al of
all
2. That the proposed resubdivision
no problems from a planning sta:
CONDITIONS:
1. That a parcel map be filed:
2. That all improvements be constr
required by ordinance and the P,
Works Department.
3. That all improvements along the
Boulevard frontage of the site
These improvements are to inclu
gutter, full width P.C.C. sidew
pavement.
4. That a subdivision agreement an
ing surety be provided to guara
satisfactory completion of the
improvements if it is desired t
.
the parcel map prior to complet
public improvements. The desig
for the curb and gutter along 'N
Newport Boulevard be provided b
Works Department.
S. That P.C.C. sidewalk be constru
the Holmwood Drive frontage of
6. That the approval of Resubdivis
shall be contingent upon the ap
Use Permit No. 1937 and subject
conditions contained therein.
-35-
MINUTES
nts
t.
as
completed
curb,
and
accompany-
ee the
blic
record
n of the
grade
th
the Public
along
property.
No. 660
al of
all
ROLL
COMMISSIONERSI July 10, 1980
, 5 o
Gtyof
t Beach
Request to. permit the installation of a radio
antenna and tower that exceed the basic.height
limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation
District. The maximum height of the proposed
expandable structure will be sixty -five feet t
above grade when in use and reduced in height
to twenty -seven feet i above grade when not
being utilized.
LOCATION: Lot 93, Tract No. 1140, located
at 2461 Crestview Drive, on the
westerly side of Crestview Drive
southerly of Marino Drive in
Bayshores.
ZONE: R -1
APPLICANT: Edward Karagozian, Newport Beach
OWNERS: Edward and Elizabeth Karagozian,
Newport Beach
Planning Director Hewicker advised that a
petition, signed by 21 residents of Bayshores,
has been received in opposition to the appli-
cation. Copies of the subject petition were
then distributed to the Planning Commission
members.
MINUTES
The public hearing was opened in connection
with this item and Ed Karagozian, 2461 Crestview
Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission
and stated that he had read the staff report
and had no comments concerning same.
Assistant City Attorney Burnham responded
to some of the legal material submitted by
Mr. Karagozian, as follows:
1. With respect to the ability of the City
to regulate antenna height because of
Federal Communication Commission licensing
of Mr. Karagozian's operation, Mr. Burnham
advised that he has reviewed the law,
especially the Shroeder case, and that
-36-
1074
AUGUST 7,
•
•
•
4MISSIONERS aaly lo, 198o
I 1 1 i Cit V p of Nov ort Beach
this review revealed that the C
Cerritos was allowed to restric
height to 40' in the Shroeder C
2. With respect to the argument th
regulation of antenna height is
by Federal Law, Mr. Burnham ind
this contention was rejected in
Shroeder Case and also rejected
Attorney General's opinion that
the subject.
3. With respect to the argument tha
restriction on the antenna heigh
violate the First Amendment righ
Mr. Karagozian, Mr. Burnham advi
this contention was rejected in
Shroeder Case, but may possibly
a caveat because in the Shroeder
plaintiff was allowed to build a
up to 40' in height (which did a
plaintiff reception within a rad
2500 -3000 miles.)
4. With respect to the Oelkers Cas
involved the City of Placentia,
advised that the court found th
restriction on antenna height w
effectively restrict the use.of
ment to the point of being usel
have no range nor reception.
MINUTES
y of
antenna
e.
the
reempted
ated that
he
y an
eals with
any
would
s of
ed that
he
ave been
Case the
antenna
low.the
us of
which
.r. Burnham
the
ld
he equip-
s, i.e.,
Mr. Burnham advised that basically, barter
cities such as Newport Beach, have b en held to
restrict antenna height as long as tie restric-
tion is reasonable pursuant to a rea onable
ordinance. Mr. Burnham felt that it is impor-
tant that Mr. Karagozian inform the 7ommission
as to exactly what his reception r
transmission range would be given
heights of his antenna. Also, Mr.
felt it important that Mr. Karagoz
the Planning Commission as to how
would be erected and what provisic
would prevail.
-37-
an a and
various
inform
structure
for safety
YOG"
July 10, 1980
Gtv Of,
MINUTES
During the course of the Planning Commission's
question and answer session with the Applicant,
Mr. Karagozian made the following statements:
1. Mr. Karagozian estimated that the proposed
antenna would be at its full height an .
average of two hours a day (.assuming more
time on weekends and less: hours on weekdays)
In addition, Mr. Karagozian indicated that
the antenna would be at its full height
mostly during evening hours.'
2. Mr. Karagozian indicated that the power of
the proposed antenna should not interfere
with neighbors' television reception.
Mr. Karagozian further indicated that there
is an impending legislation currently
in the Congress and Senate to rewrite the
Communication Act to, among other things,
give the F.C.C. power to regulate television
manufacturers so that their televisions
receive only what they are supposed to
receive. However, Mr. Karagozian said
that if there is interference with any.of ..
his neighbors' television sets, he would
voluntarily buy a high -pass filter and
give it to the neighbors to install in
their television sets. Mr. Karagozian
advised that he would inform the individuals
how to install the high -pass filter device.
Mr. Karagozian indicated that his power of
transmission would not interfere with
police signals or with the Orange County
Airport. In this regard, Mr. Karagozian
pointed out that he is.regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission and
Federal Law.
4. Mr. Karagozian advised that the antenna
tower he is proposing is a commercially -
manufactured, tubular -type tower which
would be 60 -65 feet in height. Further,
Mr. Karagozian advised that this tower
would be of a self - supporting nature and
would have no unsightly guidewires. With
respect to the safety factor of the subject
tower, Mr. Karagozian advised that if
granted this Variance, he would install
MUM
•
LA
0
. COMMISSONERS1 July 10, 1980
City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
the tower, following the obtainment of
a building permit, according to Ithe
manufacturer's specifications.
5;. Mr. Karagozian advised that he
world -wide communication and th
antenna proposed at the height
would give him that. However,
height, Mr. Karagozian advised
world -wide communication would
ble, especially in light of his
with respect to the bluffs.
Assistant City Attorney Burnham voi
Mt. Karagozian has given no informa
the Commission could rely upon if i
grant the application. Mr. Burnham
important that Mr. Karagozian infor
Planning Commission as to exactly w
reception range and transmission ra
be given various heights of the ant
In answer to a question posed by th
Commission as to City liability sho
tower fall, Assistant City Attorney
advised that he would recommend tha
Commission desires to approve this
that the Commission do so with the
condition of a Hold Harmless agreem
Assistant City Attorney Burnham adv
concerns mentioned by courts in the
justification for limitation on ant
have included safety concerns; aest
considerations; as well as economic
tons as it relates to the effect o.
property and its value.
Planning Commission discussed this
was of the opinion that this matter
continued so as to allow time to be
with information relative to the fo
information on what limitations on
reception would be imposed given va
of the antenna (to be provided by M
in writing); what the tower will to
-39-
ires
the
a lesser
t
questiona-
d that
on that
were to
elt it
the
t his
e would
Planning
d the
urnham
if the
plication
ditional
t.
ed that
ast as
na height
tic
onsidera-
adjoining
em and
hould be
wing:
.ge and
ng heights
Karagozian
like when
1
F
July 10, 1980
I I OF i: City of Newport Beach
x
MINUTES
in use and when not being utilized; brochure
information on antenna construction and specifi-
cations; and information as to whether or not
the antenna would contain`a reflector which
would alleviate chances of the antenna being
hit by low - flying aircraft. It was noted by the
Planning Commission that a photograph of a.
balloon being flown at 65' would also be bene-
ficial in helping the Commission to visualize
the height that the proposed antenna would be.
Planning Commission also requested that Staff
provide the Commission with information on
what other antenna heights have been approved
in the past.
motion was then made to continue.consideration
x of Variance No. 1074 to the Planning Commission
meeting of August 7, 1980, which motion carried.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare a
report, for presentation to the Planning
Commission at its Study Session on July 24, 1980,
which specifies the elements of the Local Coastal
Plan broken down into public - related facilities
and private- related facilities, and also speci-
fying those elements that the Commission has
already covered. At its meeting on July 24, 1980
the Planning Commission will then set the L.C.P.
for public hearing for a time certain on
August 7, 1980.
Planning Commission set a public hearing for
August 7, 1980 to consider possible revocation
of Use Permit No. 1872.
There being no further business, Planning
Commission adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
DEBRA ALLEN, Secretary
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
-40-
INDEX.
DISCUSSION
CN L.C.P.
HEARING
PLANS
USE PEI*IIT
NO. i872