Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/06/1987COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: August 6, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Present X x K K x x x All Commissioners were present. * t x EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney • * t Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator W. William Ward, Senior Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary • t t Minutes of July 23, 1987: Minutes of 7 -23 -87 x Motion was made to approve the July 23, 1987, Planning Vain X x x x x Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x +t Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the Agenda Planning Director James Hewicker stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 31, 1987, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuances: - Request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that either Continuance4 the applicants or staff have requested the following continuances to the August 20, 1987, Planning Commission meeting: Item No. 4, Use Permit No. 3284, regarding a take -out restaurant located at 3423 Via' Lido; Item No. 5, Resubdivision No. 851, regarding an existing parcel located, at 2218 - 22nd Street; and Item COMMISSIONERS �G9 9wo99� � Z 9x yo �`C(�9ti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX No. 7, Traffic Study, Use Permit No. 3278, and Resubdivision No. 849, regarding the construction of a Taco Bell drive -in and take -out restaurant facility located at 4101 Jamboree Road. Motion x Motion was made to continue Items No. 4, No. 5, and No. All Ayes 7 to the August 20, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. General Plan Amendment No. 87 -1 (E)(1) (Continued Item No.l Public Hearing) GPA 87 -1 Consideration of amendments to the Circulation Element (E) (1) of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to delete the MacArthur Boulevard/Avocado_ Avenue One -Way Couplet from Approved the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, desig- nate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial roadway westerly of the existing alignment, and designation of Avocado Avenue southerly of San Miguel Drive as a Secondary Arterial roadway. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with, this item, and Mrs. Deborah Allen, 1021 White Sails Way, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning. Commission. Mrs. Allen referred to the letter that she addressed to the Planning Commission dated August 4,. 1987, in response to the staff report. She referred to the section in the letter "History of the Compromise" that indicates the Harbor View Hills Community Association conditions the City Council enacted as part of General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B), Newport Center. Mrs. Allen stated that Harbor View Hills and other . Corona del Mar residents would be affected by the widening of MacArthur Boulevard inasmuch as MacArthur Boulevard ends at East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Mrs. Allen explained that a compromise was made regarding the widening on MacArthur Boulevard. She said that the compromise does not prohibit the widening of MacArthur Boulevard completely, which is initially what the Harbor View Hills Community Association requested; however, the compromise does _require and urge all bypass roads be implemented and in place and functioning prior to directing the traffic through • Corona del Mar. -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES August 6, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RMT Commissioner Koppelman commented that when General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) was considered one of the conditions to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard was an average weekday volume to capacity ratio of 1.05. She asked if volume to capacity ratio of 1.05 was reduced to 1.0 would there be an objection, because before the widening of MacArthur Boulevard could be implemented the traffic would increase substantially before any improvements could be made. Mrs. Allen indicated that all of the conditions should be focused on as a package, specifically the conditions requiring a public hearing, and the completion of Pelican Hill Road as a primary arterial which would take the traffic around Corona del Mar and not bring the traffic into Corona del Mar on San Joaquin Hills Road and through adjoining neighborhoods. Mrs. Allen stated that volume to capacity ratio of 1.05 would not be the most important issue in the entire package. Chairman Person commented that the City's desired • traffic level of service (LOS) is .90, and that volume to capacity ratio of 1.0 is at LOS "E" wherein he asked for an explanation of LOS "E ". Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that LOS "E" is considered "stop and go" traffic whereby automobiles can wait at intersections in excess of one to two signal cycles. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Webb replied that Corona del Mar is considered LOS "F ". Mrs. Jean Morris, President of the Harbor View Hills: Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. She made reference to MacArthur Boulevard and General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) and commented that the constraints put on the staff by the City Council and the Planning Commission in no way negated the work of the staff, and she suggested those same constraints at this time. On behalf of the Harbor View Hills Community Association, Mrs. Morris stated that the residents support the improvements of MacArthur Boulevard south from San Miguel Drive as approved by the City Council and Planning Commission in General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B). She explained that the land was to be dedicated and not paved into six lanes until the • I I I I I I I I completion of Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hill Road as bypasses, and not until the traffic count warranted could. MacArthur Boulevard actually be paved -3- COMMISSIONERS IrC qy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX into six lanes. In further reference to General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B), Mrs. Morris maintained that the Traffic Consultants recommendation for six lanes for MacArthur Boulevard were from figures that allowed every section of land from Newport Beach to San Clemente to be developed to the highest degree possible. She alleged that the climate for development in Orange County has changed drastically since those projections, and that those figures are no longer valid. Mrs. Morris requested that the paving of six lanes on MacArthur Boulevard not proceed until an actual traffic count deems it necessary, and the other conditions and constraints are met. She commented that the residents support the improvement on MacArthur Boulevard; however, the residents are requesting that the original constraints written into General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) not be deleted. In reference to Commissioner Koppelman's aforementioned concern regarding volume to capacity ratio of 1.0, Mrs. Morris stated that the Harbor View Hills Community • Association desired a traffic ratio at 1.15; however, the volume to capacity ratio of 1.05 was a compromise. Mr. Barry Allen, 1021 White Sails Way, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Allen stated that there was a recent Resolution passed by the City Council that was unanimous wherein they did not. want parking taken off of East Coast Highway through Corona del Mar; however, he doubted that six. lanes could be merged into four lanes on East Coast Highway and through Corona del Mar. Mr. Allen emphatically stated that in addition to the Harbor View Hills Community Association there were many Corona del Mar residents and civic groups who met together to prepare conditions from their point of view relating to the . MacArthur Boulevard section of General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) so as to present to the Planning Commission and. the City Council. Mr. Allen stated his concern that Cal Trans is considering MacArthur Boulevard as a freeway, and he presented two photographs that he had taken of a small sign to support his argument. The pictures were taken on MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to the "Pacific Coast Highway" sign, and that small sign says that MacArthur Boulevard is a "Freeway ". He requested that the Planning Commission deny General Plan Amendment 81 -1(E) (1) or do not change any of the conditions as approved by the City Council in General. Plan Amendment 85 -1(B). Mr. Allen stated his opposition to staff's revision to MacArthur Boulevard -4- COMMISSIONERS y °F 00 q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX his opposition to staff's revision to MacArthur Boulevard inasmuch as General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) was only recently heard and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay and Commissioner Koppelman regarding the words contained on the aforementioned small sign, Mr. Allen replied that the small sign says that this road is a freeway, it has limited access and if there are any questions to contact a specific address and telephone number of Cal -Trans in Los Angeles. He said that he saw the sign as he was walking on MacArthur Boulevard, and the photograph was taken facing East Coast Highway about 150 feet to 200 feet from the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway. In response to a question posed by James Hewicker, Planning Director, Mr. Allen stated that the adjoining "Pacific Coast Highway" sign has been standing a long. time, but Cal Trans has taken some of. the signs down • and they have been putting them up as they are working on East Coast Highway. Mr. Hewicker stated that MacArthur Boulevard has always been designated as a Veterans Memorial Highway as.a freeway designation south of San Joaquin Hills Road. In reference to MacArthur Boulevard between San Joaquin. Hills Road and East Coast Highway, Mr. Webb explained that the freeway agreement was rescinded for the East Coast Highway Freeway which included the interchange' that went up to about halfway between East Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, and the State considers MacArthur Boulevard a freeway right -of -way. Discussion followed between Mr. Allen, the Planning Commission and staff regarding the inclusion of the aforementioned photographs as part of the public record. Mr. Allen commented that he would attempt* to have photocopies for the record;. however, he wanted to' be certain that he would have photographs to present to the City Council. Chairman Person suggested that Mr. Allen attempt to have photocopies made for the public record. The photographs were not submitted as evidence for the record. • Mr. David Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that The Irvine Company supports the subject General Plan -5- COMMISSIONERS i go9m ,0\ mG�y 9NOy C, Ir o qy MINUTES August 6, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL CALL INDEX Amendment because the deletion of the one -way couplet is a preferable solution from a circulation and land use point of view. He said that when the lowering of MacArthur Boulevard was proposed as part of General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B), the adjacent property was proposed to be an office development, and there was considerable other development included in that General Plan proposal over which the considerable costs of the MacArthur Boulevard improvements could have been spread. The Irvine Company believes that it is appropriate in the General Plan Review to include some language in establishing a more equitable funding mechanism for those ultimate improvements at whatever time they should occur. He pointed out the City reviews the land use and circulation element under General Plan Amendment 87 -1 and The Irvine Company believes that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to take a look at the Fair Share Fee Program Ordinance and make a determination as to whether or not such extraordinary costs couldn't be included partially.. within the Fair Share Fee Program as well. • Commissioner Koppel-man referred to the Irvine Coast proposal that was approved by the County of Orange Planning Commission and will be heard by the Board of Supervisors. She asked Mr. Dmohowski what the phasing of the roadways are going to be in the Downcoast development. Mr. Dmohowski outlined the phasing of Pelican Hill Road by stating that construction is not permitted to begin anywhere in the Irvine Coast Planning area prior to the start of grading of Pelican Hill Road; that development inland of Pacific Coast Highway is tied in with some construction of Pelican Hill Road and takes access from the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road; that a portion of the permitted development will occur prior to the full extension of Pelican Hill Road being completed. The phasing condition indicates that two lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road would be constructed to a four lane portion of Pelican Hill Road providing access to inland development areas and that would be a condition on any development occuring that would generate up to 4,560 average daily trips. The 4,560 daily trip figure was derived from the development that was previously exempted prior to the completion of Pelican Hill Road in the old Local Coastal Program_ • approval two years ago. He said that development generated by more than 4,560 trips a day requires -6- COMMISSIONERS %G� 9o99��y2 yx CITY OF NEWPORT. BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Pelican Hill Road to be completed in its entirety at least four lanes from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard. Mr. Dmohowski stated that there is a phasing requirement that allows some development to occur in the Cameo del Mar south of Pacific Coast Highway and also in the Wishbone Hill area which would take access directly off of Pacific Coast Highway, and in that case no building permits could be issued to those projects prior to the start of construction of Pelican Hill Road and no Occupancy Permits could be granted for development in excess of 100 units until Pelican Hill Road is completed. Commissioner Pomeroy asked when The Irvine Company anticipates commencement of the grading of the four lane segment of Pelican Hill Road. Mr. Dmohowski replied that the entitlement process includes the Board of Supervisors and Coastal Commission by early 1988, and that construction would commence in mid to late 1988, and that they are anticipating approximately an 18 month construction period. Mr. Dmohowski further stated that the construction includes grading for six lanes and construction of a minimum of four lanes from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a concern expressed by Commissioner Debay regarding the volume of capacity ratio of the five intersections on East Coast Highway into Fashion Island, Mr. Webb explained the difference in what is recommended for the volume to capacity ratio of a straight roadway as opposed to an ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) figure. Mr. Webb pointed out that the City is concerned when the traffic on MacArthur Boulevard has trouble merging from two to . three lanes, and back again, and there would be backup delays between intersections at which time MacArthur Boulevard would be keyed for construction. He explained that volume to capacity ratio of .9 would indicate that construction would begin prior to exceeding the estimated capacity of the roadway, or the time the volumes on MacArthur Boulevard would be approximately 32,000, and as a comparison, he said that the daily.. volume in 1986 was approximately 23,000. • -7- COMMISSIONERS 0 y A A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX In response to Commissioner Debay's concern regarding timeframe of the roadway construction, Mr. Webb explained that the timeframe for construction would depend upon whether the funding would be done by private construction as a condition of adjacent property development, or whether it would be funded through the public process. He explained that as worst case situations, the City applied for the funds for the highway project between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road in 1978, and the Balboa Boulevard right -of -way acquisition started in 1970. He further explained that the City can apply and receive funding in two to three years as best case situations. Mr. Webb stated that if the City has enough advance notice for preparation regarding MacArthur Boulevard, the public funding could take between one to two years; however, if the funds would be coming from private development the commencement of construction could take longer. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the timeframe of the volume capacity of 36,000 for four lanes, Mr. Webb replied that the City is attempting to provide a circulation system that will handle the traffic at buildout, and that at buildout there will be a need to have volume capacity greater than 36,000 automobiles a day whereby there is cause for six lanes on MacArthur Boulevard. Commissioner Pomeroy stated his concern regarding possible gridlock on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar based on the projected volume of traffic. Mr. Webb stated that all of the traffic turning onto MacArthur Boulevard from East Coast Highway does not go through Corona del Mar, and he described the current turning lanes on MacArthur Boulevard at East Coast Highway. In conclusion,. Mr. Webb stated that the City's traffic volume projections indicate that the traffic demand'on, MacArthur Boulevard will warrant six lanes and that good planning would provide for that traffic. Mr. Webb concurred with Commissioner Pomeroy's statement that it would be inappropriate to plan MacArthur ,Boulevard for less than anticipated capacity even though problems may exist such as East Coast Highway that would not allow that capacity utilized without being corrected. Commissioner Merrill commented that when three lanes of • automobiles are southbound on MacArthur Boulevard and are stacked up into two lanes, the automobiles will -8- COMMISSIONERS $ c^00 mZ BG 9u, 99'� 9 vx Zy cy f C Zo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX disperse onto the streets through Harbor View Hills and Old Corona del Mar to avoid the congestion at East Coast Highway. Mr. Webb stated that the subject General Plan Amendment is a Master Plan which projects traffic for today and the future buildout of adjacent property, for down - coast, and all of the other areas in the City. Mr. Webb explained that the City is attempting to provide streets for capacity traffic, and he concurred that maybe phasing of a development is.appropriate, and that maybe there should be some mechanism to provide same. Chairman Person pointed out that said mechanism was , provided in General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B). The public hearing was reopened and Mrs. Allen reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker referred to the staff report and stated that Mrs. Allen has a concern regarding a condition as approved in General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) regarding the construction of two outside through lanes in each. direction on MacArthur Boulevard. Mrs. Allen stated that her concern would be how long the construction would take if and when all of the conditions were met to widen MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes. Mr. Webb explained that assuming that lowering the grade on MacArthur Boulevard had been completed and the roadway had been moved over, the wide median would be narrowed down to a normal size median to add the two new lanes.'_ Mr. Webb advised that the MacArthur Boulevard construction would be a very significant construction ' project and also very expensive. Ms. Temple clarified the condition further by stating that the condition as approved in General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) was connected with the development of the Newport Center buildout project in a specific phase program, and the . City is now recommending the condition as an adjacent improvement within an unspecified timeframe. The public hearing was closed at this time. Chairman Person stated that if increments of the Newport Center General Plan are proposed. then partial funding for the subject project could either be bonded or set aside as a condition of approval for any.of the projects in or about Newport Center, or anything else The Irvine Company may do in the area. • Commissioner Koppelman referred to the six -lane portion of East Coast Highway merging into four lanes in Corona. -9- COMMISSIONERS \410 c^ O yy t r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX del Mar with two lanes of parking, and that on the south end of Corona del Mar it appears that six lanes will begin at the Downcoast area. She pointed out that the City Council has taken a position of leaving the parking on East Coast Highway; however, East Coast Highway is under the jurisdiction of Cal -Trans and not Newport Beach and she asked if that should be a concern. Mr. Webb replied that Cal -Trans has indicated that they would not recommend the removal of parking without the consent of the City through a public hearing. He said that legally they do not have to have the consent of the City, but politically they would not do it, and also portions of East Coast Highway are in the Coastal Zone. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the Resolution as presented by staff did not address many of the concerns - that were addressed in General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) Motion x as it relates to MacArthur Boulevard. Motion was made to approve General Plan Amendment 87- 1(E) (1) (Resolu- tion No. 1161) and to include the following conditions as *previously approved in General Plan Amendment No. 85 -1(B): Circulation Element: 1. Revise the Circulation Element and the Master Plan of Streets and Highways Map to delete the MacArthur Boulevard /Avocado Avenue Primary Couplet designation; designate MacArthur Boulevard as a' Major Arterial (six lanes, divided); designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (four lanes, undivided) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. 2. MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San' Miguel;Drive shall be improved to lower the grade . and move the road westerly, as described in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B). 3. Two outside through lanes in each direction on MacArthur Boulevard shall be constructed so that additional lanes constructed, when required by the City, will occur towards the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and the • prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive. -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES August 6, 1987 �G 9N 99'S° vyvx, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL CALL INDEX 4. That prior to the construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum, shall be met: A. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Primary Arterial configuration (4 lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard. B. An average weekday volume -to- capacity ratio of 1.00 on MacArthur Boulevard in . the vicinity of Harbor View Drive. In adopting this criteria relative to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, it is the position of the City Council that a primary purpose in considering this General Plan Amendment is the reduction of diversion traffic through residential streets in Corona del Mar. It is . anticipated that if the average weekday • volume -to- capacity ratio on MacArthur Boulevard reached 1.00, deversions to local Corona del Mar streets such as Marguerite Avenue, Poppy Street and Fifth Avenue would occur. 5. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of the criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. Commissioner Koppelman stated that the San Joaquin Hills Road link up to Pelican Hill Road is an integral part of the condition of the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, and she recommended that the following Amendment x condition be added as it was approved in General Plan . Amendment 85 -1(B). "Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Primary Arterial configuration (4 lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass Hill Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road." Chairman Person maintained that Pelican Hill Road is going to be only phased after the stretch of roadway between the terminus of San Joaquin Hills Road and • Pelican Hill Road is constructed, and that it may not be necessary to include a further condition because it -11- COMMISSIONERS ;� �O ON�B mG � 9iA �9'�p q q� O i c� $ y CC v: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX is going to happen before Pelican Hill Road is constructed. The Planning Commission and Mr. Webb discussed the phasing of Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. After the public hearing was closed, Mr. Dmohowski reappeared before the Planning Commission to clarify the phasing program of Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road as approved by the County of Orange Planning Commission: The first phase is the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to the Pelican Hill Road alignment, at that point an extension of Pelican Hill Road south from San Joaquin Hills Road into the development area inland from Pacific Coast Highway, not all of the way to Pacific Coast Highway. Development can occur in that area up to a point that development generates 4,560 trips. Thereafter, Pelican Hill Road must be completed to a minimum of 4 lanes before any additional development can occur inland to Pacific . Coast Highway or in excess of 100 units south of Pacific Coast Highway. In response to a question posed by Mr. Webb regarding when The Irvine Company anticipates constructing - Pelican Hill Road from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard before the beginning of construction of 400 units, Mr. Dmohowski replied that the construction in Cameo del Mar and in Wishbone Hill takes access from Pacific Coast Highway which also' needs the inland access off of Pelican Hill Road. The construction would begin on the entire roadway in various segments in the very beginning of the development. In response, to Mr. Webb's question regarding when The . Irvine Company anticipates the construction of four, lanes from Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur Boulevard, Mr. Dmohowski replied the complete grading needs to be completed immediately with San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road and Pelican Hill Road to the inland portion of the development area would need to occur shortly thereafter. Pelican Hill Road from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard would be completed. as development occurs beyond 4,560 trips or after the occupancy of the first 100 units in Cameo del Mar and • Wishbone Hill. -12- COMMISSIONERS mG �'m 99 .0 9 bs yyyo�oy `` �o vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Commissioner Merrill commented that two lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road will be a construction road to avoid construction trucks on Pacific Coast Highway. The maker of the motion stated that he would support Commissioner Koppelman's aforementioned condition as an amendment to the motion. Chairman Person stated that he would support the motion inasmuch as he had supported the MacArthur Boulevard portion of General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B). He reasoned that it is important that MacArthur Boulevard not be widened until it is necessary and that he supports the views as expressed by the concerned residents. Ayes x x x x x K The motion was voted on to approve General Plan Amendment No. 87- 1(E)(1)(Resolution No. 1161) including No x the addition of the aforementioned conditions. MOTION CARRIED. - • • . -- The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Use Permit No. 3237 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) Item No.2 UP323.7A Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted alterations and additions to an existing architectural office on property located in the Un- Approved classified District. The proposed amendment involves a' request to make further alterations and additions which' will expand the interior office space of the building. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit the use of compact parking spaces within the existing on -site parking area. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 1015, First Addition to the Newport Mesa Tract, located at 1535 Monrovia Avenue on the westerly side of Monrovia Avenue, between 15th Street and Production Place in the West Newport Triangle Area. ZONE: Unclassified • APPLICANT: Craig Combs Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant - _- -13- COMMISSIONERS :\N o� 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Craig Combs, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Combs stated that he had a concern regarding the requirement for additional parking spaces as stated in Condition No. 4. Mr. Combs explained that the covered porch area consists of 312 square feet and requires 2 parking spaces; however, he said that the porch adjoins an exterior concrete wall and has two openings. Mr. Combs further explained that the attic storage space consists of 778 square feet, and he said that the space contains dead storage, and a large furnace and water heater for the building. Mr. Combs commented that access to the attic is provided by a pole ladder with a single support with rungs which 'is being improved to a more easily accessed ladder. Mr. Combs explained that the porch and the attic total 1,092 square feet, requiring 5 parking spaces, that 2 of the parking spaces could be accommodated, however, 3 parking spaces could be accommodated but that would require removal of landscaping at the rear of the building. Discussion followed regarding the ladder /stairway, and Mr. Combs stated that the ladder will conform to the Uniform Building Code. In response to questions posed by Chairman Person and Commissioner Winburn regarding Condition No. 6 requiring the "as built" construction be altered to conform to the Uniform Building Code, Mr. Combs replied that the alteration time would be within thirty days, and that the drawings were submitted to the Building Department approximately six weeks ago. Mr. Combs stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of Condition No. 4 regarding 5 additional parking spaces;* however, he would comply with staff's recommendation's. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she did not understand how the applicant could commence_ with construction without applying for the proper building permits first. Mr. Combs stated that he made a mistake; however, he said that with the exception of the ladder /stairway everything was according to the Building Code. In response to comments made by • -14- COMMISSIONERS %q�m�o mG � 9N 9y'0a 9Z oZ Cf Q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Commissioner Roppelman regarding the art studio, Mr. Combs stated that the art studio that was referred to during the October 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting is presently storing a planning table only because of the disruption of the office area; however, the art studio is not intended to be used for that purpose. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3237 Ayes x x x x x (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in No Exhibit "A" with the exception of Condition No. 6 which shall further state "that said alteration shall be completed to conform to the Uniform Building Code within 30 days following issuance of the Building Permit." Commissioner Pomeroy asked the maker of the motion to amend Condition No. 6 from 30 days to 45 days. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. • Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3237 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including aforementioned amended Condition No. 6. MOTION CARRIED. - FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with existing and sur- rounding land uses. 2. The proposed project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That there will be adequate on -site parking for the proposed development of the site. 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will ' not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. S. The approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. 3237 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 -15- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES August 6,1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 6. That the proposed modification to permit a portion of the required parking to be provided as compact spaces will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and section, except as noted below. 2. The Planning Commission may add or modify the conditions of approval to this use permit should there be any change to the existing or future office use and private use art studio on the site which will result in an increase in the parking demand for the subject property. 3. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3237 as approved by the Planning Commission on October 9, 1986 shall remain in effect. 4. That five (5) additional parking spaces shall be provided on -site, for a total of 29 spaces.. Six (6) of:said parking spaces may be compact parking . spaces. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 6. That the "as built" construction shall. be altered to conform to the Uniform Building Code, and a Building Permit shall be required for all new • construction. That said alteration shall be completed to conform to the Building Code within 45 days following issuance of the Building Permit. -16- COMMISSIONERS q NX «y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX 7. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3280 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to install a take -out window for hot dogs and UP3280 soft drinks only at an existing Carl's Jr. Restaurant facility on property located in the Cannery Village /Mc- Approved Fadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes a request to waive the additional required off - street parking space. LOCATION: Parcels No. 1, 2, and 3, Record of Survey 35 -25, located at 3101 Newport Boulevard, on the southwesterly corner of 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard in the Lucky's Market Shopping Center. • ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., Anaheim ., OWNER: William J. Cagney, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jim Middleton appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person; Mr. Middleton stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibits "B" and "C" with the exception of the condition requiring a trash compactor. Mr. Middleton explained that they have a daily trash pickup six times a week. In reference to the conditions requiring that bathrooms be provided for patrons, Chairman Person stated that he has had experiences at the subject facility where the restrooms have not been available to the customers. Mr. Middleton explained that previously the restrooms were not available to the customers because of the close proximity to the beach and the abuse to the. restrooms; however, he said that the Building Department required public restrooms as a condition • when the applicant applied for a Building Permit to remodel the subject restaurant and the restrooms have now received final inspection. -17- COMMISSIONERS .off NV C o vy An CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Mr. Middleton stated that the applicant has met with the City Traffic Engineer regarding the request to widen the sidewalk and to install a rail to control the patrons waiting at the take -out window, and that the applicant has agreed with the Traffic Engineer's recommended pedestrian and driveway circulation systems. He said that the applicant has advised the property owners that they would install five or six trash enclosures throughout the parking lot. Mr. Middleston stated the concerns the property owner had regarding the fixed rail and the widening of the sidewalk because of a bump in the sidewalk in front of the take -out window area; however, he said that the bump could be removed and the rail could be removed from the sidewalk when the take -out window is not open for business. Mr. Middleton commented that the purpose of the take -out window is not to increase business but to relieve congestion from inside the store, that the window would only serve drinks and hotdogs in accordance with the Health Department, and that the take -out window would be open- only during peak lunch • and dinner hours. He explained that the area chosen for the take -out window was because there was already a window there, and that there would be less expense involved. Commissioner Winburn stated that staff recommended Exhibit "C" which includes the installation of the take -out window on the easterly side of the building, and she opined that the easterly side would relieve - congestion from the entrance to the store. Mr. Middleton replied that there would still be congestion at the entrance to the facility unless the patrons stood along the courtyard area, and he also replied that equipment has been installed at the area requested by the applicant whereby there would be additional expense to move to the easterly side of the building. Commissioner Debay stated that her concerns regarding, the request are the bus terminus located nearby, and the influx of young people to the area. She further stated that the young people could cause congestion in front of the window while waiting to be served. Mr. Michael Fisher, Manager of the subject restaurant, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that • -18- COMMISSIONERS •y to to 04 N � !♦ gym oy << 4� q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX one employee should be able to move patrons through the area quickly so there would be no congestion; however, another employee could be moved from the counter area to assist the employee at the take -out window. Mr. Middleton stated that the purpose of the railing is to control the patron line; however, the restaurant could place an employee outside to oversee any congestion that may occur. Mr. Andy Prokop, Regional Operations Director of Orange County for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Prokop concurred with the aforementioned statements presented by Mr. Middleton and Mr. Fisher with the emphasis that the applicant is willing to work with the City, the property owner, and the community to better serve their guests. He said that the applicant would be willing to spend $7,000. to $10,000. to install a take -out window on the easterly side of the window; however, they would prefer not to have to do so. • Chairman Person referred to the conditions in Exhibits "B" and "C" stating that the Planning Commission may bring back the use permit if there are any problems at the take -out window. Mr. Prokop replied that the applicant would comply with the conditions so that the take -out window would not have to be removed. Commissioner Koppelman stated her concerns regarding the congestion of young people in the shopping area. Mr. Prokop explained that the applicant is also concerned because the regular customers often avoid the restaurant during the summer months, and that is one' reason why the applicant is requesting a take-out- window so as to avoid the congestion of the young people inside the restaurant. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Prokop replied that the proposed hours of operation for the take -out window are from 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 P.M. - 8:00 P.M. Commissioner Di sano inquired if Carl's Jr. Restaurants have other facilities within Orange County that are located in similar surroundings that have take -out windows and that are on busy boulevards, and he stated • his concern regarding the congestion of young people in -19- COMMISSIONERS ¢ A � p' 0 Mh A 9 9X G0. �y lrf +S C 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX a small area. Mr. Prokop replied that there are no other similar facilities; however, one of the reasons for the railing is for safety purposes. Mr. Michael Fisher, Manager of the subject restaurant, reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission: that there are take -out windows within California that are conducive to the environment of their area as the subject take -out window would be conducive to the beach patrons; that an employee is assigned to pickup trash daily on the beach in addition to encouraging business; that restrooms were available to all patrons up to two years ago but the cost to maintain the restrooms was so prohibitive that the Health Department permitted the restaurant to allow the restrooms for employees only; and that during the past year the restrooms have been available to patrons under controlled use. Mrs. Francis Bury, 2911 - 2929 Newport Boulevard appeared before the Planning Commission stating her concerns regarding the debris from the take -out restaurant on Newport Boulevard. Mrs. Bury also stated that the approval of a take -out window could set a ' precedent for other restaurants in the area. Mr. Middleton reappeared before the Planning Commission and in rebuttal to Mrs. Bury's previous testimony, he stated that Carl's Jr. Restaurant is a take -out restaurant, and that they are concerned, but they are not responsible for the debris left by their customers._ There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Debay referred to a letter received by the Planning Commission from Cagney Enterprises, property - owners, dated August 6, 1987, wherein the letter states that they have no objection to a take -out window but that they will not permit the widening of the sidewalk nor a fixed railing for lines. Commissioner Debay concluded that there is no way to control the line on the sidewalk. Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3280, subject to Motion x the findings in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Merrill stated that he has a concern regarding the amount of • restaurant debris that would have to be governed in the area. -20- COMMISSIONERS %G�y N - 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Substitute Substitute motion was made to approve Use Permit No. Motion x 3280 subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "C" permitting the take -out window on the easterly side of the building. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion to deny Use Permit No. 3280 because of her concern regarding the young people congregating in the area and that the take -out window could produce more .trash than the take -out restaurant only. Commissioner Di Sano stated.that he supports the motion to deny Use Permit No. 3280 because of his concerns regarding the volume of traffic and trash that would be created and also from a safety standpoint. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support the substitute motion. He asked the maker of the motion to amend the motion so as to delete Condition No. 10 Amendment x requiring a trash compactor, and to add Condition No. 18 to control the hours of operation from 10:00 p.m. - • 2 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. The maker of the motion stated that she would not support the deletion of Condition No. 10 inasmuch as the Planning Commission has been requiring trash compactors for all restaurants; however, she agreed to the stated hours of operation as Condition.No. 18. Chairman Person stated that he would support ' the substitute motion. He maintained that there could be less confusion inside the restaurant as. the applicant has stated, and that only hot dogs and drinks may not create a problem. Chairman Person further stated that he has a desire to give the applicant an opportunity to. prove themselves and further, the Planning Commission has the ability to bring the use permit back under Condition No. 16. Chairman Person pointed out that the subject site does not have a use permit at this. time; however, if there would be a use permit on the property the City would be allowed to come back and monitor the property at anytime in the future. In reference to Condition No. 16, Chairman Person 'and Commissioner Koppelman explained that the revocation process could be required, or the Planning Commission • could also add or modify conditions. -21- COMMISSIONERS A$� - y �Foq�* m AG 9N 9� <0 9 9X CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Ayes x x x x Substitute motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. Noes 21 N 3280 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "C" with the approval of a take -out window on the easterly side of the building, and the addition of the aforementioned Condition No. 18. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities, and one additional required parking space will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the site has been developed and the structure has been in existence for many years. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3280 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements. in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That the development standards pertaining to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, utili- ties, parking lot illumination and one additional required parking space shall be waived. 3. That the take -out window shall be located on the easterly side of the building. . 4. That the customer waiting area shall be located on the easterly side of the building and that it _22- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 4 A� ;�^yoomG�m August 6, 1987 BG �N yy goy �� Cy o �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROI_ CALL INDEX shall be located entirely on private property. Said customer waiting area shall be separated from the walkway to the north, adjacent to the parking lot, by a barrier to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 5. That thirty -four (34) parking spaces shall be required for the subject take -out restaurant facility. 6. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold on the premises unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. 7. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 8. That all signs shall conform to Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. . 9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the adjoining properties, and from Newport Boulevard. 10. That a trash compactor shall be installed and maintained. 11. That all employees shall be required to park on -site. 12. That a washout area for refuse containers. be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay 'or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 13. That grease interceptors shall be provided on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 14. That exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the • _ Building Department. -23- COMMISSIONERS 9y O� y cC f$9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX 15. That one bathroom for each sex shall be provided and shall be made readily available to patrons of the facility during all hours of operation. 16. 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. 17. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 18. That the hours of operation for the take -out window shall be limited to the hours between 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. x : R Use Permit No. 3284 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to establish a take -out restaurant facility. UP3284 with on -sale beer and wine and seating on the inside of the restaurant building and outside in a common court- Continued yard, on property located in Via Lido Plaza in the to 8 -20 -87 C -1 -H District. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 85 -1 (Resubdivision No. 516), located at 3423 Via Lido, on the southerly side of Via Lido between Newport Boulevard and Via Oporto in Via Lido Plaza. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANTS: Rocko's Cuisine of Lido, Inc., and the Fritz Duda Co., Balboa Island OWNER: Newport Via Lido Associates, Orange • James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicants have requested that this item be continued to the August 20, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. -24- COMMISSIONERS mG�y �NOy `C o 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Motion x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3284 to the All Ayes August 20, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Resubdivision No. 851 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land into R851 two parcels for single family residential purposes on property located in the R -1 District. The proposal Continued also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to 8 -20 -87 to allow an existing detached two car garage on Parcel No. 2 to encroach to the rear property line where the Code requires a 10 foot rear yard setback. Said garage will also encroach to within 6 feet of the front property line of the adjoining Parcel No. 1 where the Code requires that accessory buildings shall not project beyond the 20 foot front yard setback on said adjoining lot. • LOCATION: A portion of Lot 298, Newport Heights, located at 2218 22nd Street on the northeasterly side of 22nd Street between Centella Place and Irvine Avenue. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Martha Webb, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Ron Miedema, Costa Mesa James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to . the August 20, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion was made to continue Resubdivision No. 851 to Motion x the Au Oust 20, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. All Ayes Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. • -25- COMMISSIONERS N5\_P1dh CC o q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX A. Use Permit No. 1852 (Extension) (Continued Item No.6 Discussion) - UP1852 Ext. Request to consider the extension of Use Permit No. 1852 That permitted the establishment of a restau- UP1852 rant /delicatessen facility with on -sale beer and wine (Revocation in the C -1 District. Use Permit AND 'Extended B. Use Permit No. 1852 (Revocation) (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider the revocation of Use Permit No. 1852. This public hearing is to determine whether said use permit should be revoked for failure to comply with the requirement that in -lieu parking fees be paid on an annual basis. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 3 and 7 of Section 28, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, San • Bernardino Meridian, located at 3325 Newport Boulevard, on the westerly side of Newport Boulevard between Finley Avenue and 32nd Street, in Central Newport. ZONE: C -1 - - APPLICANT: Hassan Hassan, La Habra - OWNERS: John P. and Maxine Myers, Los Angeles - James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant made a deposit to the City two days ago to bring his status current with the payment schedule that was imposed. by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker commented that he was disturbed that the applicant only complies with the conditions of approval to pay the City for the in -lieu permits when the pressure is on him by continuing the use permit. Mr. Hewicker recommended that rather than continuing the use permit or recommend revocation because now the applicant's payments are current, that the Planning Commission approve the extension of the use permit with the instruction to the staff that the next time the applicant misses a payment that the use permit would • automatically be brought back to the Planning Commission to set a hearing for revocation.. Mr. -26- COMMISSIONERS y:G 9N �9�9Z 9 A oy�`� ;q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Hewicker further recommended that at the first of the year when the applicant must buy new in -lieu permits for 1988, that the applicant make payment in advance and in full for the entire year so that the City does not have to waste staff's and the Planning Commission's time to keep the applicant current. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Hassan Hassan appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hassan stated that he understood Chairman Person's statement that the Planning Commission may extend the use permit; however, if a payment is late or the applicant does not pay in advance for 1988, that the Planning Commission will set the use permit for revocation. Commissioner Koppelman concurred with Mr. Hewicker's recommendation to bring the use permit back to the Planning Commission because the applicant has taken advantage of the situation. • Commissioner Winburn suggested that staff's recommendation be issued to Mr. Hassan in the form of a letter for clarification. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion'. x Motion was made to extend Use Permit No. 1852 All Ayes (Extension), and if a monthly payment is delinquent that the use permit will come back to the Planning Commission. That the applicant must pay the in -lieu' fees in advance in January, 1988, and in full for the entire year. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. # t A. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with TS the construction of a drive -in and take-out restaurant facility with indoor and outdoor seating areas; and the UP3278 acceptance of an environmental document. R849 AND B. Use Permit No. 3278 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a Taco Bell - drive-in and take -out restaurant facility with indoor and outdoor seating areas; and a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. -27- COMMISSIONERS - Gay Nay fC C$.o 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 6, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX AND - _ Continued to C. Resubdivision No. 849 (Continued Public Hearing) 8 -20 -87 Request to create one parcel of land for restaurant purposes and one parcel of land for off - street parking purposes where one parcel of land now exists. LOCATION: Parcel No. 7 of Parcel Map 82 -713 (Resubdivision No. 731), located at 4101 Jamboree Road, on the northwesterly side of Jamboree Road, northeasterly of MacArthur Boulevard in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P -C APPLICANTS: Aetna Life Insurance Company, c/o The - Koll Company, Newport Beach; and Taco Bell Corporation, Santa Ana • OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, Irvine James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that staff has recommended that this item be continued to the August 20, 1987, Planning Commission meeting: - Motion x Motion was made to continue Traffic Study, Use Permit All Ayes No. 3278, and Resubdivision No. 849 to the August 20, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. t * x A D J O U R N M E N T: 9:50 P.M. Adjournment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY -_ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -28-