Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/1990COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES o ° ° PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: July 19, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Present * All Commissioners were present. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary iMinutes of July 5. 1990: minutes of 5 -5 -90 Aotioye * Motion was made and voted on to approve the July 5, 1990, All Ayes Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. • s s Chairman Debay presented Commissioner Pomeroy with a plaque commemorating his term as Chairman of the Planning Commission from September, 1988, to July, 1990. Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non- agenda items. • COMMISSIONERS July 19, 1990 MINUTES .o ,4 o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Postina of t e eg n a: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 13, 1990, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuances: Request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that the following continuance items be continued to the August 9, 1990, Planning Commission meeting: Item No. 8, Use Permit No. 3289 (Amended), Newport Dynasty, Inc., property located at 2300 West Coast Highway, requesting the establishment of live entertainment; Item No. 9, Use Permit No. 3386, Martha and Robert Durkee, applicants, property located at 500 West Balboa Boulevard, requesting a combined commercial /residential development; and Item No. 10, Amendment No. 708, a request to establish the Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) District. Commissioner Pers6n suggested that Item No. 10 be continued to the August 23, 1990, Planning Commission meeting based on the number of proposed items for the August 9, 1990, Agenda. Motion was made and voted on to continue Items No. 8 and No. Motion All Ayes 9 to the August 9, 1990, Planning Commission meeting, and Item No. 10 to the August 23, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Exception Permit No. 39 (Discussionl Item No.l Request to permit various identification signs for each tenant in EP #39 two of the multi -tenant buildings in the Via Lido Plaza Shopping Approved Center located in the C -1 -H District where the Sign Code permits only one wall sign per business. The proposal also requests the approval of 3 monument signs on the property where the Sign Code permits only one such sign, and a request for one of said monument signs to exceed the permitted area of 200 sq.ft. 2 COMMISSIONERS �W A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Parcel o. I ot Parcel ap - (Resubdivision No. 516), located at 3417 -3475 Via Lido, on the southerly side of Via Lido between Newport Boulevard and Via Oporto in Via Lido Plaza. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Innovative Graphics, Inc., Orange OWNER: Fritz Duda Company, Orange Mr. Ken Jackson appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the property owner wherein he introduced Mr. Pepper Gomez, applicant. Mr. Gomez concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A' with the exception of Condition No. 4, "That the height of the monument sign adjacent to Newport Boulevard be limited to a maximum of 25 feet." Mr. Gomez explained that the property owner has an agreement with the City • that the sign that was removed from the site could be replaced with a sign of equal height of 35 feet. Mr. Gomez stated that the condition in the Agreement reads as follows: "..To allow the relocation of the existing pylon sign or the installation of a new pylon sign provided that the new sign is the same height or lower than the existing sign, and has similar areas of signage, and is installed so it meets the current Building Standards and Zoning Code." In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the foregoing Agreement was executed by the City with the property owners in conjunction with the remodel of the parking lot and the widening of Newport Boulevard. Mr. Webb stated that the original sign permit would indicate the actual size of the original sign. (A subsequent review of the approved plans revealed that the former pylon sign on the property was permitted to maintain a maximum height of 25 feet.) Commissioner Pers6n recommended that Condition No. 4 be modified to state "That the height of the monument sign shall be in accordance with the Agreement executed between the property • owner and the City dated February 22, 1990." -3- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Following a aiscussion between Me Planning ommms r o 06 stm Mr. Gomez indicated that the applicants intend to install a smaller sign than the previous pylon sign that was located on the site. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the Security Pacific Bank Building, Mr. Gomez explained that uniform signage on said building will be considered when the development plans concerning the property are completed and submitted to the City. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Exception Permit No. All Ayes 39 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit W, including modified Condition No. 4 as previously stated. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed signs will be compatible with surrounding land uses. • 2. That the proposed signs will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the proposed sign program, as approved, represents a reasonable request considering the size of the shopping center and the number of tenants. 4. That the proposed signs maintain a unified design which is compatible with the architecture of the building and will serve to enhance the overall appearance of the center. 5. That the granting of this exception permit will not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. 6. That the approval of this exception permit is necessary to protect a substantial property right and will not be contrary • to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code (Sign Ordinance), and will not be materially detrimental to .4. COMMISSIONERS d A W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits issued by the Building Department for the proposed signs. 3. That the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for the existing banners located on the light posts along Via Lido. 4. That the height of the monument sign shall be in accordance with the Agreement executed between the property owner and the City dated February 22, 1990 (i.e. a maximum height of 25 feet). 5. That all monument signs shall be built or relocated in accordance with Standard - 110-1, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Resubdivision No. 934 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land R934 for a two family residential condominium purposes on property located in the R -2 District. approved LOCATION: Lot 15, Block 37, River Section, located at 3711 West Balboa Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of West Balboa Boulevard, between 37th Street and 38th Street, in West Newport. • ZONE: R -2 -5- July 19, 1990 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES � W A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INQEx Lloyd es Development, Corona del mar OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Duca- McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Lloyd Rucker, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appear and be beard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivision No. 934 All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. The parcel map shall be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. -6- July 19, 1990 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES `APO �'.� q,G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That all improvements be cons tructed as require y Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to the completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the deteriorated and cracked sidewalk be reconstructed along the West Balboa Boulevard frontage and that the deteriorated A.C. alley be repaved along the property frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 7. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. No construction storage or delivery of materials shall be stored within the West Balboa Boulevard right -of -way. 8. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 9. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. i -7- COMMISSIONERS 6 �' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 10 1 hat this resubdivision s expire it e map Has no recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Resubdivision No. 935 (Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to resubdivide one lot and a portion of a second lot into R935 a single parcel of land for a two family residential condominium development on property located in the R -2 District. Approved LOCATION: Lot 8, and a portion of Lot 10, Block 537, Corona del Mar, located at 506 Jasmine Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Jasmine Avenue, between Second Avenue and Third Avenue, in Corona del Mar. • ZONE: R -2 Mar APPLICANT: Lloyd Miles Development, Corona del OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Duca- McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Lloyd Rucker appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W'. Mr. Russell Howell, 513 Jasmine Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he expressed his concerns regarding the proposed square footage of the residential condominium and the deterioration of the concrete street. Commissioner Pers6n explained that the Planning Commission does not review residential condominium plans; however, he said the project must be developed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. • In response to concerns expressed by Mr. Howell regarding the condition of Jasmine Avenue, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained 8 COMMISSIONERS WCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX at concrete pavement is long-lasting and is not consiclered when there are cracks in the concrete; however, the City considers replacing the concrete if there are holes or large separations that would create a dangerous situation. Mr. Webb advised that an employee from the City would examine the street condition on Jasmine Avenue. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Resubdivison No. 935 All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through • or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy. The parcel map shall be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. • 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of -9- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to the completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the deteriorated sidewalk and curb and gutter be reconstructed along the Jasmine Avenue frontage and shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 7. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be • minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 8. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits 10. That the on -site parking and driveway access shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 11. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 12. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an • extension is granted by the Planning Commission. -10- COMMISSIONERS �o � Or �p�iY� p�CP A W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX esubdivision is Hea nn Item No.4 Request to resubdivide three lots and a portion of a fourth lot into 8936 three parcels of land, each for two family residential purposes, on property located in the R -2 District. The proposal also includes an Cont ' d to exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of 8 -23 -90 parcels which are less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area and less than 50 feet in width. LOCATION: Lots 3, 4, 5 and a portion of Lot 6, Block 132, Corona del Mar, located at 2612 and 2616 Ocean Boulevard, on the northeasterly side of Ocean Boulevard, between Dahlia Avenue and Fernleaf Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Thomas L. Kistinger, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Duca McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that "condominium" be deleted from the first paragraph of the staff report. Mr. Hewicker stated that the subject building sites are a combination of lots containing two dwelling units and the request is to develop three building sites where the dwelling units currently exist. He explained that unless the two dwelling units are removed, the two existing dwellings would be located on new lot lines and the middle parcel would contain a portion of each dwelling unit. Mr. Hewicker suggested that Condition No. 15 be added to Exhibit "A" stating that prior to the recordation of the parcel map, the existing structures on the site be removed. Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicant has indicated concerns regarding Condition No. 13 in Exhibit "A' requesting that park dedication fees for four dwelling units be paid wherein he explained that staff and the Planning Commission do not have the jurisdiction to waive said requirement. He stated that the Municipal • Code requires that the City assess land when there is a tentative subdivison map or a tentative parcel map filed with the City. -11- COMMISSIONERS CALL • • July 19, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH In response to a clarification by Commissioner Glover regarding a statement in the staff report stating that "the applicant could legally remove the existing residences on the subject property, and construct the proposed six units by combining the lots or portions of lots by means of covenant agreements..", Mr. Hewicker explained that the subject building site consists of three subdivided lots plus a portion of a fourth lot wherein the applicants could eliminate the two existing dwellings and construct one or two dwellings on the easterly parcel, one or two dwellings on the middle parcel, and a third dwelling unit or duplex on the parcel consisting of the third lot plus a portion of the remaining lot. He explained that the Zoning Code provides that where a single family dwelling or a duplex is proposed to be constructed across property lines, a parcel map is not required. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person regarding the purpose of the aforementioned Condition No. 13 inasmuch as it is a Municipal Code requirement, Mr. Hewicker explained that the condition provides information to the applicant and clarifies that it is a condition of the map. Commissioner Person suggested that language be added to the condition stating that the Planning Commission does not have the ability to waive said condition. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the condition is required at the time of approval so.as to be imposed at a later date. Mr. Hewicker commented that the City Council would be the governing body that could waive the condition. Ms. Flory and Mr. Hewicker discussed the feasibility of modifying the condition to state when the park dedication fee could be paid. Mr. Hewicker stated that the fee has to be assessed on the basis of the number of lots that are being created and the number of allowable dwelling units. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that Section 19.050.100 of the Municipal Code provides that at the time of the filing of the Final Subdivison Map, the Subdivider shall dedicate the land or pay fees as determined by the City Council. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Thomas Kistinger, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kistinger explained that the Resubdivision settles an estate for three beneficiaries. He stated that an existing dwelling that is located on two lots will remain on the site, and one dwelling that is proposed to be eliminated is located on the third lot. Mr. Kistinger stated that no plan exists of the number of -12- INDEX COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I INDEX proposes umts mat wnt De aevetopea on the ►ots. mr. in concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Hewicker stated that the staff report was based on the information that was provided to staff by the applicant indicating that the two dwelling units would be removed from the site. He further stated that the Municipal Codes requires when filing a map, the applicant is required to show the location of all dwelling units on the property that are to remain. He indicated that the map does not illustrate any buildings that would remain on the site; therefore, there is no way of determining how the proposed lot lines will relate to the existing structures. Mr. Kistinger stated that if the single family dwelling located at 2612 Ocean Boulevard is eliminated, the remaining structure situated on two lots would satisfy the Municipal Code. He agreed to revise the plans depicting the existing structures on the site. Commissioner Edwards suggested that the resubdivision be continued until revised plans are submitted to staff depicting the existing structures. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Kistinger agreed to continue the application to the Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 1990. Commissioner Pers6n suggested that Mr. Kistinger advise the status of the structure that is proposed to remain on the site inasmuch as the building could create a problem if it crosses the lot lines. Ms. Karen Carlson, 2616 Cove Street, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein she addressed her concerns regarding the impact six dwelling units would have on the parking in the area, and the hydraulic pump system inasmuch as her property was flooded during the past winter. In response to a question posed by Ms. Carlson regarding the park dedication fees for four dwelling units instead of six dwelling units, Mr. Hewicker explained that the fee was based on the fact that two dwelling units currently exist on the property. Chairman Debay pointed out that the applicant is permitted to construct six dwelling units on the subject property inasmuch as the property is located in the R -2 District. -13- COMMISSIONERS o'O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Motion was made and voted onto continue esubdiviMion o. All Ayes to the August 23, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. A. Amendment No. 713 (Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 18 so as to reclassify one portion of the subject property from the R -1 District A713 to the R -2 District, another portion from the R -2 District to the 8932 R -1 SPR District and another portion from the R -1 District to the R -1 SPR District. The proposal also includes a request to establish Approved a 10 foot front yard setback on the Districting Map for that portion of the subject property adjacent to Iris Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. AND • B. Resubdivision No. 932 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide three Iris Avenue lots into a single parcel of land for single family residential development and to adjust the common interior property line between the proposed Iris Avenue parcel and a Breakers Drive lot. The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of a parcel which is less than 50 feet wide. LOCATION: Lots 30, 32 and 34, Block A -36, Corona del Mar, located at 126 -130 Iris Avenue; and Lot 1, Tract No. 1026 located at 3016 Breakers Drive, on the southeasterly comer of Iris Avenue and Ocean Boulevard and on the northerly side of Breakers Drive, easterly of Iris Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONES: R -1 and R -2 APPLICANT: Robert Bucci, Newport Beach • OWNERS: John Harris, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Robert Bucci Associates, Newport Beach -14- COMMISSIONERS OW A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with is item, an Mr. Robert Bucci, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. Mr. Bob Koop appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed project. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that the Corona del Mar beach access street is a prolongation of Iris Avenue. He further stated that the street address of the proposed development will be considered on Breakers Drive. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Amendment No. 713 All Ayes and Resubdivision No. 932 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. A. Amendment No. 713 Finines: 1. That it has been determined that the requested Amendment No. 713 is appropriate and that both the existing and proposed land uses are consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the requested zoning amendment is logical, and necessary for the purpose of adjusting the Zoning District boundary so as to be consistent with the new parcel configuration proposed by the applicant. 3. That the establishment of a 10 foot front yard setback along both the Iris Avenue and Ocean Boulevard frontages of Parcel 1 will provide a more consistent and uniform street side setback for the subject property in relation to other properties along Ocean Boulevard. -15- COMMISSIONERS CALL 0 • July 19, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. That the establishment of the SPR overlay zone on Parcel 1 is appropriate due to the location of the subject property, the difficult access to the site, its steep topography, and the potential obstruction of public views from the beach access ramp. 5. That the requested amendment will not adversely impact upon the surrounding parcels and that the granting of said amendment will not be detrimental or injurious to persons, property, and improvements in the neighborhood or general welfare of the City. 6. The project will not have a significant environmental impact. B. Resubdivision No. 932 Findines: 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 5. That there are unusual circumstances associated with the subject property which justify the granting of an exception to the average lot width requirement inasmuch as the existing irregular shape of the Breakers Drive parcel makes it difficult to develop an efficient and workable site plan. 6. That the exception to the Subdivision Code is necessary in order to allow for the redevelopment of Parcel 2 with two -16- INDEX COMMISSIONERS '� � ti9 O, d o�c� O�Y c�0 c`Po� y�� q.� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX residential units, as are a majority of the other lots along Breakers Drive. 7. That the granting of the requested exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity, inasmuch as the proposed average width of 46.35± feet for Parcel 2 is greater than the average width of the existing Lot 1 which is only 41.41± feet. Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to occupancy, and that the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water • service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. That a minimum 18 foot clear width driveway be provided with a reciprocal easement dedicated for ingress and egress, and that a minimum of 24 feet be provided for backing from garages. The design shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagman. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and • local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. No -17- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLLCALL111 Jill I I INOEK construction storage or delivery of materials shall be stored within the Ocean Boulevard or Corona del Mar Beach access ramp rights -of -way. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, a parking plan for workers must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. 8. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public water and sewer services serving the subject project, including pavement repair prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 9. That permitted development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs. It is also required that the applicant shall sign a waiver of all claims against the public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to build. All required waiver documents shall be recorded with the County of Orange Recorder's Office. 10. That a geologic report that will determine areas of potential instability or hazard along with a map indicating such information must be submitted to the City Grading Engineer. 11. That a park dedication fee for one dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code. 12. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 13. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. 9" COMMISSIONERS A d+o.o A .� W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Modification No. ann Item No.6 Request to consider an appeal concerning the Modifications Mod No.371£ (Appeal) Committee's approval of Modification No. 3718 which involves a request to permit the retention of a portion of a single family dwelling currently under construction to encroach 1 foot 1 inch into sustained the required 10 foot rear yard setback. The total length of the encroachment is 7 feet, and occurs at both the first and second floors. LOCATION: Lot 86, Tract No. 7386, located at 15 Rocky Point Road, at the northerly terminus of Rocky Point Road, in Spyglass Hill. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: Systems Construction Company, Anaheim OWNERS: Mr. & Mrs. Vijay Soni, Newport Beach • Newport Beach APPELLANT: William W. Lange, Commissioner Merrill stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Glover requested a clarification of Finding No. 5, Exhibit "B ", Findings for Denial, '"That the adjoining property owner is opposed to the proposed development." William Laaycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that one of the Modification findings for approval or various applications provides that the adjoining property owners have no objections to the proposed encroachment. Chairman Debay asked if the Mutual Settlement Agreement between the property owners and the Spyglass Hill Community Association has been executed? Mr. Laycock replied to the affirmative that the Agreement was executed between the property owners and the Association, but not with the appellant. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. William Lange, 16 Rocky Point Road, appellant and adjoining . property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lange explained that in December, 1989, when the foundation of -19- COMMISSIONERS CALL • • July 19, 1990 . MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH the structure on the property located at 15 Rocky Point R poured, it appeared that the structure was very close to the slope wherein the contractor informed him that the project had been approved by the Association and the City. In January, 1990, Mr. Lange said the City red - tagged the project because of an encroachment into the rear yard setback, after he contacted the Building Inspector, Steve Michael, to visit the property; however, he said that construction proceeded on the project for thirty days. In February, 1990, after Mr. Lange contacted the City regarding the stop work order, he said that the Building Inspector red - tagged the entire project inasmuch as the previous stop work order in the rear yard setback area was not observed. On February 20, 1990, the Modifications Committee denied the requested encroachments into the rear yard setback, except for a second floor pave overhang; however, he said the contractors continued to work on the roof of the house and installed windows in the rear yard setback area until the Association submitted an injunction along with a lawsuit. Mr. Lange stated that a recent survey requested by the Building Inspector determined that the structure is not located on the site as indicated on the plans. Mr. Lange expressed his concerns regarding the impact that the proposed structure would have on his view corridor. He indicated that his dwelling was constructed at the required setback approved by the Association with the understanding that the adjacent property would be developed with the same setback requirement so as not to interfere with his view corridor. Mr. Lange determined that the subject property would impact his view corridor by 5 feet. Mr. Lange referred to the Modifications Committee approved Finding No. 3 from its meeting of June 12, 1990 which provides "that the approved encroachment is minor in nature, and will not substantially obstruct views from the adjoining residential property." wherein he stated that "minor in nature" does not pertain to everyone. In reference to Finding No. 4, "That the removal of a portion of the master bedroom and related deck on the second floor in excess of the required 10 foot rear yard setback, will enhance the views from the adjoining residential property. ", he stated that the City should not interfere with the findings of the Homeowner's Association. He explained that he did not object after the Association negotiated with the property owner to reduce the setback requirement in half; however, he said there is a 4 foot encroachment. Mr. Lange objected to the Modifications ME INDEX COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL July 19, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX the subject property is developed that it would obstruct his view. Mr. Lange concluded his presentation by stating that the value of his property is being affected by the square footage of the subject development, and the City should require the 10 foot rear yard setback. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Lange replied that his appeal is based on the action of the second Modifications Committee hearing, and the fact that construction activities continued after the stop work orders were issued by the Building Inspector. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Lange replied that he did not sign the foregoing Mutual Settlement Agreement. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Lange replied that the Mutual Settlement Agreement has been executed. Mr. Lange explained that the initial confusion by the contractor may be that the property line and the slope are separate issues inasmuch as the Association based the 10 foot rear yard setback from the top of the slope and the City considers the required 10 foot setback from the rear property line, which are not the same location. Mr. Lange recommended that only the property line setback should be considered by the City and not the Association's required setback. Mr. Fred Hallock appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Hallock responded to Mr. Lange's foregoing testimony wherein he disagreed with the 4 foot encroachment inasmuch as he said that 4 -1/2 feet of the second floor of the structure was removed when in actuality the Association requested that only 2 feet be removed. Mr. Hallock explained that the result of the second survey on the property revealed an 11 inch encroachment into the rear yard setback. Mr. Hallock commented that he apologized by letter to the Modifications Committee for the sub - contractors continued work on the project to install the windows; however, he explained that • the stop work order allowed the contractors to continue to work on other portions of the project not located in the setback area. Mr. Hallock objected to remarks that were previously made that the -21- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX property owners claimed ar s ip for negotiating purposes. Mr. Hallock further stated that there was no intention for the project to encroach 11 inches; however, he indicated that the property owners made a compromise by reducing the encroachment on the upper floor so as to enhance Mr. Lange's view corridor. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the amount the encroachment was reduced on the upper floor so as to satisfy Mr. Lange's concerns, Mr. Hallock explained that the upper floor was encroaching 1 foot 10 inches, and it was reduced by 4 feet 6 inches. Mr. Laycock explained that the upper floor encroachment that was cut back refers to the master bedroom area that cantilevered over the first floor adjacent to the family room. Mr. Hallock moved to the display area and described the foregoing encroachments. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hallock replied that the approximate square footage of the proposed single family dwelling is 7,300 square feet. Edwards In response to a question posed by Commissioner with respect to the foregoing second floor encroachment, Mr. Laycock explained that the concerned 11 inch encroachment is now located in the family room that is two stories high. He further replied that the appellant did not object to the roof overhang that was approved by the Modifications Committee on February 20, 1990, inasmuch as it did not obstruct his view corridor. Mr. Laycock referred to Exhibit "B" in the brochure that was distributed by the applicant wherein he pointed out the 10 foot rear yard setback on the adjacent vacant lot, the area that a structure could be constructed on the site, and the potential view obstruction that the structure would have on Mr. Lange's property, if said lot is developed to the allowable setback lines. Mr. Harry Merrill, 25 Montecito Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Spyglass Hill Community Association's Architectural Committee. Mr. Merrill explained that the Association limits the building area of the lot to 60 percent of the flat pad area. Mr. Merrill stated that the setback cannot be established from the property line inasmuch as the property line, . in some cases, runs down the lot to the street below. He further explained that because the reservoir is adjacent to the subject -22- COMMISSIONERS 'd A ffi� O d O��"A q � CA��.Z A �� �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX e a loing properties, tile property es run e property an m top of the slope; therefore, the 10 foot rear yard setback is measured from the top of the slope in accordance with the grading plan on file with the City. Mr. Merrill determined that perhaps when the City built the reservoir, the slope may have been altered from the existing property line. Mrs. Vijay Soni, property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission in response to Mr. Lange's testimony. She explained that when the subject property was purchased, the tract map indicated the property line to be located at the top of the slope, and the architect based the building's setback on said map. Mrs. Soni stated that the encroachment was not discovered until after the second story in the master bedroom had been built. She further expressed her concern the affect the removal the existing steel post that encroaches into the rear yard setback would have on the structure. Dr. John Udall, 7 Rocky Point Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that property owners of previous developments on Rocky Point Road have been respectful of the Association's required 10 foot setback from the slope. He opposed the subject modification on the basis that the project could be built with the required 10 foot setback; that the neighbors on Rocky Point Road have also indicated their opposition to the modification; the landscaping is minimal on the lot inasmuch as the structure encompasses most of the flat portion of the site; and he indicated that the structure measures 4 feet 8 inches from the edge of the house to the slope. Commissioner Di Sano addressed the three letters of opposition that were received in opposition to the modification. Dr. Udall commented that the fourth property owner opposing the modification is Mr. Strottman, a neighbor residing across the street from the subject property. Mr. Laycock commented that the three foregoing letters were received when the Modifications Committee had the first public hearing on February 20, 1990, when the requested encroachments were denied with the exception of the requested roof overhang, and no letters of opposition were received by the Modifications Committee prior to the second public hearing • on June 12, 1990. -23- COMMISSIONERS � ON 3d h7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL Ll I I I I I I INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner war s, Dr. Udall replied that he was only vaguely aware of the litigation between the property owners and the Spyglass Hills Community Association, he did not participate in a vote, and he was not aware if Mr. Lange was involved with the litigation. Mr. Michael Bernard, project manager for the subject project and an employee of Systems Construction Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Bernard referred to Exhibit "D" in the brochure that was distributed to the Planning Commission by the applicant wherein he addressed the architect's concern regarding the integrity of the structure relative to the structural steel of the building if the structure had to be moved back 11 inches. Mr. Bernard stated that the contractors have worked with the Spyglass Hills Community Association and the City in conjunction with the project. He said that the process in revising plans is a timely one, and during the initial notification from the City of a possible encroachment, work was being done on the • project with the belief that it was done in compliance with the request which stated that work was not to be done on the rear portion of the building. Mr. Bernard explained that two subcontractors disregarded the City's stop work order and the contractor's directives which was not to work on the windows and alarm installations. He said that Mr. Lange videotaped the work that was being done. Mr. Bernard commented that when the stop work order was issued, revised plans were being drawn so as to submit the revised plans to the Modifications Committee. Mr. Bernard concurred with Mr. Merrill's testimony regarding the property lines, and he confirmed that the Civil Engineer developed the original Grading Plan in accordance with the information that was available to him by the City. He said that the Grading Plan clearly showed that the top of the slope and the rear property line were to have been one and the same; however, he said they are not one and the same at this time and the original Engineer did not identify that they were not one and the same as he prepared the Grading Plan. Mr. Berard explained that after it was discovered that there were encroachments, a second Civil Engineer was hired to survey the building in accordance with the original Grading Plan with the belief that the plan was correct wherein it was discovered there was an encroachment which led to the first modification • application. He further explained that after litigation commenced, a licensed Engineer was hired to resurvey the property in -24- COMMISSIONERS � c�AO q� q� A Oc�pyd.� ��� W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX accordance with the tract map wherein it was discovered that the property line and the top of the slope were not one and the same, and that a corner of the two story family room encroaches 11 inches into the 10 foot rear yard setback, which led to the second modification request. Mr. Hallock reappeared before the Planning Commission so as to respond to Dr. Udall's testimony. He stated that the survey taken by the licensed Civil Engineer measured the building to be exactly 9 feet 1 inch from the property line, not 4 feet 6 inches. Commissioner Edwards addressed the Mutual Settlement Agreement that was distributed to the Planning Commission by the applicant. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, indicated that the Mutual Settlement Agreement between the property owners and the Spyglass Hill Community Association is not relevant to the modification. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to the 10 foot rear yard setback, Mr. Hewicker explained • the confusion exists because there is a conflict regarding the setback line between the Association and the City. Mr. Hewicker concurred that according to the City, there is an existing encroachment of 11 inches into the rear yard setback. Mr. Lange reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated that Mr. Strottman attended the Modifications Committee public hearing on June 12, 1990, so as to state his opposition to the application. Mr. Lange indicated that many of the property owners on Rocky Point Road would like to add additional square footage to their structures; however, he said that if that was done, the integrity of Spyglass Hill would be destroyed. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Lange replied that he is aware of the litigation between the property owners and the Association, that he did not participate in the litigation, that he consulted with the attorneys representing the Association, that he was aware of the settlement that was reached, and he has not seen the settlement agreement. Mrs. Soni reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein she • stated that Mr. Robert R. Overdevest, 14 Rocky Point Road, a neighbor opposing the modification, resides in a 10,000 square foot 25- COMMISSIONERS .o � � y � �0 � � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX structure, 5 feet from the top of slope, and she indicated there are other large residences on Rocky Point Road. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to sustain the action of the Modifications Committee, to approve Modification No. 3718, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Di Sano supported the motion based on the recommendations of the Modifications Committee. Ayes Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Abstain * Findings: 1. That the approved construction will not be detrimental to • the surrounding area or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use. 2. That the approved development will not affect the flow of air and light to adjoining residential properties. 3. That the approved encroachment is minor in nature, and will not substantially obstruct views from the adjoining residential property. 4. That the removal of a portion of the master bedroom and related deck on the second floor in excess of the required 10 foot rear yard setback, will enhance the views from the adjoining residential property. 5. That the adjoining, vacant lot will affect the views from surrounding properties to a greater extent than that of the subject structure, if said lot is developed to the allowable setback lines. Conditions: • 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved revised plot plan, floor plans, and elevations -26- COMMISSIONERS o a'd'd din �� � d pow �0 s'e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the as-built construction of the master bedroom on the second floor shall be cut back 4 feet 6 inches, and that the as-built deck off of said master bedroom shall be eliminated entirely, as shown on the approved plans. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 P.M. Use Permit No 991 (Amended) item No.7 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP991(A) permitted the establishment of the existing Our Lady Queen of Approved Angels Church. The proposed amendment involves a request to continue the use of one temporary relocatable structure currently located on the property and to allow the use of three additional • temporary structures. The proposed temporary structures will be used for interim classrooms while the permanent facilities are being constructed. LOCATION: Record of Survey 63-46, (Resubdivision No. 173), located at 2046 Mar Vista Drive, on the southwesterly corner of Mar Vista Drive and Domingo Drive, across from the Corona del Mar High School. ZONE: R -3 -B APPLICANT: Our Lady Queen of Angels Church, Newport Beach OWNER: Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange, Orange The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. James Parker appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". • There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. -27- COMMISSIONERS �s o. op A ��� �� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. . All Ayes (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Findinas 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have a significant environmental impact. 3. That the proposed structures are temporary and will be located on the property only for the course of construction of the permanent facilities which is expected to be approximately one year. 4. That adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the • proposed development. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 991 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and elevations. 2. That this use permit shall be granted for a period of two years, or until such time as the permanent buildings which will replace their use, are completed, which ever occurs first. Any further extension of this use permit shall be subject to the approval of the Modifications Committee. 3. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use • Permit No. 991 and No. 991 (Amended) as approved by the City Council on March 12, 1990 shall be fulfilled. -28- COMMISSIONERS AM �W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL 11 Jill I INDEX 4. That at any such time as the applicants use o e temporary structures cease or the use permit expires, whichever happens first, said structures shall be removed from the site, and the property shall be restored to its original condition. 5. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. iJse Permit No 3289 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) item No.8 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3289 (A) permitted the establishment of a 53 unit motel facility and related • restaurant and cocktail lounge on property located in the "Retail 8o9t90 to Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposed amendment involves a request to change the operational characteristics of the existing restaurant so as to increase the "net" public area" of the restaurant facility and to allow the establishment of live entertainment within the restaurant and motel lobby, to include a piano bar and strolling string instruments. LOCATION: A portion of Lot A, Tract No. 919, located at 2300 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, across from Cands Restaurant, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Newport Dynasty, Inc., Newport Beach OWNERS: Chih Mao and Yean M. Kuo, San Clemente James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that this item be • continued to the August 9, 1990, Planning Commission meeting -29- COMMISSIONERS N \ I, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX inasmuch as the proposed changes were not adequately re ecte in the Notice of Public Hearing. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the August All Ayes 9, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. s s s Use Permit No 3386 (Continued Public Hearing) item N0.9_ Request to permit the construction of a combined UP3386 commercial /residential development on property located in the C -1 District. Con -' to 8 -9 -90 0 LOCATION: Lot 22, Block 3, East Newport Tract, located at 500 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of Island Avenue and West Balboa Boulevard, on the Balboa Peninsula. • ZONE: C -1 APPLICANTS: Martha and Robert Durkee, Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicants have requested that this item be continued to the August 9, 1990, Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time to review the plans with staff. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the August All Ayes 9, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. s : s Amendment No. 708 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.10 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code A708 so as to establish the Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) District. 8-23 d to 5 -23 -90 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach -30- COMMISSIONERS CALL Motion All Ayes July 19, 1990 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that this item continued to the August 9, 1990, Planning Commission meeting for further review. Commissioner Pers6n suggested that this item be continued to the August 23, 1990, Planning Commission meeting based on the number of proposed items for the August 9, 1990, Agenda. Motion was made and voted on to continue this item to the August 23, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Y ! f DISCUSSION rMM: DISCUSSION ITEM Report from the City Attorna Regarding the Grading Activity Adjacent to the Proposed Hoag Hospital Day Care Center, Chairman Debay and James Hewicker, Planning Director, discussed the Coastal Commission's requirement to redesign the Child Care Center so as to provide more parking spaces than required by the City. Chairman Debay and Commissioner Glover discussed with staff the action that the City is currently taking with respect to how to determine what would be considered 'wetlands'. Ms. Louise Greely, 16 Swift Court, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein she requested that the wetlands be preserved where they exist so as to maintain the present habitat of vegetation and wildlife. Ms. Greely stated that there are Government Agencies that could define 'wetlands' including the Fish and Wildlife Service. She emphasized that the drought - resistant, rare, natural vegetation on the bluff side of the Cal -Trans East property stabilizes the bluff. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the City s policies pertaining to wetland mitigation allows wetlands on -site or off -site. I I I I I I I I Dr. Jan VanderSloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with Ms. Greely's • foregoing statements. Dr. VanderSloot submitted photographs prior to, during, and after grading the site depicting signs of wildlife. Dr. VanderSloot commended the City for stopping the -31- COMMISSIONERS '0 � s oar c�� o. o °��n 10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX grading and drainage of the pond that was developing at the site, and he commended Hoag Hospital for agreeing to restore the area previously covered with cattails, to replant similar vegetation, and to modify the drainage collection system to insure that the area receives the water collected by the system. Dr. VanderSloot stated that the bluff is covered with coastal bluff scrub that is natural vegetation, primarily buckwheat, and he submitted a photograph of the buckwheat. Dr. VanderSloot indicated that the grading and landscaping plans are outside of the site plan approved by the City and if the activity had occurred within the designated area there would not be the problems that have recently occurred. He suggested the following actions be taken by the Planning Commission: request a representative from the Fish and Game Department or Coastal Commission to define the areas that are 'wetlands' so a similar situation does not occur again; consider making modifications to Use Permit No. 1421 (Amended) requesting that the Grading Plan does not cause adverse impact to the wetlands and the landscape plan does not cause removal of natural coastal sagebrush vegetation, such as buckwheat. • Commissioner Di Sano asked if a water report exists that contains the conditions of the water. Dr. VanderSloot replied that the available source is the EIR for the Hoag Cancer Center. He said that an EIR report pertaining to the widening of West Coast Highway refers to salt and fresh water wherein he referred to the pipes that are located in the bluff area indicating that water has existed on the site. Chairman Debay asked Dr. VanderSloot if he would agree to a transference in the event the wetlands could not be maintained in the pristine state. Dr. VanderSloot replied that if there would be a loss of wetlands, he would agree with on -site mitigation where all of the wetlands are consolidated on the west end of the property, and that said area be preserved as a natural wetland with the coastal bluff scrub so as to be incorporated into a park. Dr. VanderSloot suggested an alternative would be to transfer development rights from the low lands into the upper campus of Hoag Hospital. He said that there is a national mandate from President Bush to preserve wetlands. He said the Government has suggested an avoidance analysis, ways to avoid removing wetlands, and if that is impossible, then to review ways to restore wetlands on • the site, and if that does not occur, then consideration would be necessary to mitigate wetlands off -site. -32- COMMISSIONERS 1W o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Kris Hanson, 22 Encore Court, appeared a ore a annmg Commission wherein he addressed the Coastal Commission's request to move the Hoag Child Care Center. Mr. Hanson stated that the Child Care Center was moved because of a future expansion plan of the Cancer Center, not because of the three additional parking spaces. Mr. F. W. Evins, Vice President of Hoag Hospital, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he addressed Mr. Hanson's testimony. He testified that the Coastal Commission requested an additional 11 parking spaces and not 3 parking spaces. He explained that the Child Care Center project was not recommended on the main service access road for the purpose of safety and proper planning. In reference to the foregoing testimony regarding the 1,000 square foot wetland area, Mr. Evins stated that the area has been labeled by the Fish and Game Service as "very low habitat value ". He said that Hoag Hospital agreed to stop construction on the project immediately so as to redirect the water and replant the vegetation. Commissioner Merrill requested information pertaining to the landscaping on the slope. Mr: Webb replied that the existing natural vegetation on the slope is adequate. He explained that the slope was badly eroded when Villa Balboa was developed, and as a part of the grading operation, the slope was cut back and a drainage system was installed, and the slope was subsequently replanted with natural vegetation. Mr. Webb stated that the drainage system was installed in the slope so as to be certain that the slope would remain stable, however, the water that has migrated across the site has caused the wetlands. Mr. Webb explained that a condition exists that requires the slopes to have an erosion control landscaping plan. Commissioner Pers6n and Mr. Webb discussed the existing natural vegetation on the slope and the landscaping plan that may be suggested by the City's Grading Engineer. -33- COMMISSIONERS �W A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 19, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX The Planning Commission voted to consider Commissioner items for Pomeroy's request to discuss the following items at the Planning Considera- Commission meeting of August 23, 1990. tion Motion Motion was made and voted on to consider reducing the minimum Ayes residential lot area in the City. MOTION DENIED. No Motion was made and voted on to consider increasing the Motion permitted floor area ratio on small residential lots and decreasing Ayes the permitted floor area ratio on large residential lots. MOTION Noes * * * * * * DENIED. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Di Sano Ayes from the Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 1990. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 9:42 p.m. Adjournment s * x THOMAS EDWARDS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • -34-