Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/1988 (2)COMMISSIONERS � F m� sya+ �y c� yo a REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7 :30 p.m. DATE: August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROMPEALL INDEX PRESENT * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. - EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney W. William Ward, Senior Planner Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of August 4. 1988: Minutes of Commissioner Pomeroy referred to page 32 of the subject 8_4_88 Minutes, and requested that the Amendment No. 663 vote • be corrected to state 5 ayes, 1 no. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the August 4, All Ayes 1988, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Agenda Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August 12, 1988, in front of City Hall. Reauest for Continuance: Request for James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Continuance applicant, Dial Fun Center, located at 200 West Coast Highway. has requested that Use Permit No. 3005 • (Amended) be removed from calendar inasmuch as the applicant has vacated the site, and that the applicant, Lee West, has requested that Item No. 5, Traffic Study No. 49 and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended), located at COMMISSIONERS F F 9 9 N � August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RONFEALL INDEX 3000 West Coast Highway, requesting the establishment of a restaurant facility, be continued to the September 8, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 5, All Ayes Traffic Study No. 49 and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended), to the September 8, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3005 (Amended)(Continued Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3005A . permitted the establishment of an automobile rental facility on property located in the C -1 -11 District. The Removed proposed amendment involves a request to permit the sale from of boats, boat trailers and similar watercraft, in Calendar conjunction with the auto rental facility. LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, 3 and a portion of Lot 4, • Tract No. 1210, located at 200 West Coast Highway, on the northwesterly corner of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway, in the vicinity of the Newport Bay Bridge. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Dial Fun Center, Newport Beach OWNER: Horwin /Gordon, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be removed from calendar .inasmuch as the applicant has vacated the property. � *at -2- COMMISSIONERS August 18, 1988 Ash CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R ALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3321 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to permit the establishment of a retail sales UP3321 facility specializing in the sale and installation of automobile accessories and auto detailing on property Approved located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. LOCATION: A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2906 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANTS: Nancy & Robert Clark OWNER: Robert Brandy, Pauma Valley The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mrs. Nancy Clark, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Clark stated that she concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the following exceptions. In reference to Condition No. 12 requesting containerized landscaping, Mrs. Clark stated that the applicants have invested in property improvements and that the property owner would benefit more by said improvements. Chairman Pers6n pointed out that everyone benefits from landscaped improvements. In reference Mrs. Clark's concern regarding Condition No. 10 requesting a 16 foot 6 inch wide dedication on West Coast Highway, Chairman Pers6n explained that the condition only applies to the applicant's leasehold interest. In reference to Mrs. Clark's request for an explanation of Condition No. A 21, .'"that the use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months.. ", Chairman Pers6n explained that the applicant must comply with the conditions of the use permit within 24 months from the date of approval. Discussion ensued between Mrs. Clark and Mr. Hewicker regarding the restriction of outdoor speaker systems. Discussion ensued between Mrs. Clark and Commissioner Merrill regarding the three permitted business signs . that are currently located on the site. In reference to Condition No. 6 regarding automobile -3- COMMISSIONERS _ NO 9i. August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX detailing, Commissioner Merrill stated that auto detailing is only permitted indoors. In reference to Condition No. 15, Mr. Hewicker explained that the automobile wash area must consist of a curb, roof and wall so the wash water does not enter into the sewer system. Discussion ensued between Mrs. Clark and Commissioner Pomeroy regarding automobile window tinting, and Mrs. Clark stated that the customers are required to sign a disclaimer stating that it is illegal to tint automobile windows to a specific degree of intensity. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that he has a fundamental problem that the City would allow illegal window tinting. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mrs. Clark replied that the applicants do not intend to market tires and rims as accessory items, inasmuch as they do not have an appropriate parking area for installation purposes. 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 Merrill regarding Condition No. 2, the approved parking plan, Mr. Hewicker replied that the circulation system is subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding a parking plan to depict the canvas covered area outside for the automobile wash, William Ward, Senior Planner, replied that the applicant indicated that the automobile detailing would be on the ground floor portion of the rear building and that the tented area would not be used for detailing. Commissioner Merrill suggested that the operating hours be restricted so as to curtail the noise from sound producing activities. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3321 subject All Ayes to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including the addition of Condition No. 22 to state: "That the operating hours of sound producing activities, such as auto detailing and installation, shall be limited to between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m." Motion voted on, MOTION . CARRIED. Findings: -4- COMMISSIONERS ymG 9N 6 \Ir _ y o�y0 August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO=CALL INDEX 1. That the proposed use is 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. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed project. 3. The Police Department has indicated that it does not contemplate any problems from the proposed operation. 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. 5. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code, 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3321 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 project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking areas shall be appropriately striped in accordance with the approved parking plan. 3. That all employees shall be required to park their vehicles on -site. 4. That the doors to the installation bays in the • front and rear buildings shall be designed in a manner so as to provide acceptable on -site circulation. The design of said doors shall be -5- COMMISSIONERS August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That a minimum of 13 parking spaces shall be provided on -site except that when West Coast Highway is widened only 12 on -site parking spaces shall be required. 6. That all installation, window tinting and auto detailing activities shall be conducted within a building. The alarm systems shall not be sounded in the installation bay unless a mute device is installed in each case. That all stereo music shall be confined to the interior of the building. 7. That the display of all products for sale shall be located within a building. 8. That the offices located on the second floor of the rear building shall be used for related offices of the subject project and shall not be leased or • rented to a separate tenant. 9. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code unless an exception permit is approved by the City. Said signs shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 10. That prior to the issuance of any building permits or implementation of the use permit, the lessee shall dedicate to the City for street and highway purposes, the lessee's interest in a 16 ft. -6 in.± wide parcel adjacent to West Coast Highway. 11. That no outdoor sound system or paging device shall be utilized on -site. 12. That the applicant shall install a system of containerized landscaping along the building frontage adjacent to West Coast Highway. Said landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department and shall be installed prior to the implementation of the use permit. • 13. That one handicapped parking space shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking. -6- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS F � S m y�G�$�ow9cC vyp� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Said parking space shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times and shall be identified with a handicapped sign on a post. 14. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits and the implementation of this use permit. 15. That no washing of automobiles shall be permitted unless a washing area with appropriate drain equipped with a grease trap is installed within the ground floor portion of the rear building which is to be used for automobile detailing. 16. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 17. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements. 18. That 6 foot wide sidewalk and drive apron be constructed and the existing utility box raised to grade along the West Coast Highway frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportaion within 120 days of approval of the subject Use Permit unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 19. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from West Coast Highway and adjoining properties and shall be located in a manner which is consistent with the on -site parking design. 20. 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. 21. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 22. That the hours operating of sound producing -7- COMMISSIONERS ��G�y 9soy C( 1�� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX activities such as auto detailing and installations shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m, weekdays and Saturdays. Use Permit No. 3104 (Amended)(Public Hearing) Item No.3 Amend a previously approved use permit which permitted Up3104A the construction of a multi -use aquatic center in the Unclassified District. The proposed amendment involves Approved a request to revise the location of the previously approved launching dock within the project and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 165, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 420 North Star Lane on the northerly side of North Star Lane, easterly of White Cliffs Drive, in Westcliff. • ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANTS: City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Aquatic Center, Newport Beach OWNER: City of Newport Beach and.the County of Orange The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Curt Fleming, President of the Newport Aquatic Center, and Bruce Ibbetson, member of the Board of Directors, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Fleming replied that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Ibbetson described the ramp and the dock areas. Mr. Ibbetson and Chairman Pers6n discussed the ramp that would service the dock. In response to questions posed by Mr. Ibbetson regarding Conditions No. 6 and No. 7, Chairman Pers6n stated that said conditions would apply only during the construction phase of the project. In reference to Condition No. 12 regarding the location of the dock basin, Mr. Ibbetson explained that interested officials will be onsite during construction to be certain that necessary adjustments have been made. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that Condition No. 12 be amended to state "That based on preliminary plans that -8- COMMISSIONERS .p .off ;� �mp����NOy�oCf o04,�, August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R6WALL INDEX City staff and other permitting agencies that may be involved, shall assure that the bottom of the dock basin will not be any closer than..." Mr. Ibbetson referred to Condition No. 15, regarding habitat destruction, and he commented that the applicants have received the required satisfaction from the Department of Fish and Game. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3104 (Amended) All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 12 to state "That based on preliminary plans that City staff and other permitting agencies that may be involved, shall assure that... ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and with the Local Coastal Program and is compatible with the • surrounding land uses. 2. That a Negative Declaration has been prepared and that the proposed project, as conditioned, will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That additional tidal wetlands will be created. 4. That the project has been reviewed by the California State Department of Fish and Game, and the project has been modified in response to the suggestions of the Department of Fish and Game. 5. That the approval of this.amendment to Use Permit No. 3104 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 to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial • conformance with the approved plot plan. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use -9- COMMISSIONERS ot, August 18, 1988 Irr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R&WALL INDEX Permit No. 3104 as approved by the Planning Commission on September 6, 1985 shall remain in effect. 3. That the final location of the boat ramp shall meet the approval of the Planning Director, the Public Works Director, and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director. 4. That an all weather driving surface capable of supporting a fire truck shall be constructed around the building. 5. That adequate provisions be taken to insure that no excessive debris or foreign material be permitted to enter the bay during any demolition, movement, and additional construction. 6. That a siltation, dust, and debris control plan shall be submitted and be subject to approval by the Building Department and a copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. This shall be a complete plan for temporary and permanent facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 7. That the siltation, dust, and debris control plan shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize the impact of haul operations (if required), 8. That a weekly cleanup program around the dock shall be conducted on a regular basis to prevent waste and debris from falling into or entering Newport Bay. 9. That all other approvals required by law shall be obtained, including Coastal Commission approval. 10. That all activities (dock and related structures) will be a minimum of sixty feet (601) from the nearest boundary of the Riparian Zone unless otherwise approved by the Coastal Commission. • 11. That all excavations and dock installation activities shall not in any way damage the vegetation or change the elevation of the Riparian -10- COMMISSIONERS August 18, 1988 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Zone excepting the "pampas grass" (weeds/bushes) as identified by the Department of Fish and Game. 12. That based on preliminary plans that City staff and other permitting agencies that may be involved shall assure that the bottom of the dock basin will not be any closer than ten feet (10') to the boundary of the Riparian Zone. That in areas not directly in front of the dock the distance be increased to a minimum of twenty feet (20') , and where possible thirty feet (301) or greater in order to provide as much slope distance as possible. 13. That the pickle weed and chord grass areas adjacent to, and on the south side of the mouth of the existing Riparian Zone shall not be disturbed. 14. That the dock and related structures shall remain inside the property line; i.e. outside of the Ecological Reserve. i, 15. That any habitat destruction in the intertidal zone will be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Department of Fish and Game. 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 amendment 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. • -11- COMMISSIONERS Z�G� t^�mce9� N m'$c Py�o Gy (` 9yG August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX A. Traffic Study No. 48 (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request the acceptance of a traffic study so as to allow TS No-48 the construction of a 23,593± sq.ft. (gross) retail - office building in the "Retail Service Commercial" area UP 3317 of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan which includes a request to override the requirement of the Traffic Vesting Phasing Ordinance. The proposal also includes the Resub.876 acceptance of an environmental document. Denied AND B. Use Permit No. 3317 (Public Hearin) Permit the construction of a 23,593± square foot retail - office building on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposal includes: a request to exceed the allowable gross structural area of .5 times the buildable area of the site; a request to exceed the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District; and a request for a modification to • the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking. AND C. Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a vesting resubdivision so as to resubdivide two existing parcels of land into a single parcel for commercial development on property located in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. LOCATION: Portions of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2912 and 2930 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast highway, between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue in the mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Said Shokrian, Corona del Mar • OWNER: Same as applicant -12- COMMISSIONERS Z�GZ ZZo�Z' 0 Z < Z ff August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX In response to a request by James Hewicker, Planning Director, so as to explain how Vesting Resubdivision Maps differ from Subdivision Maps, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, referred to Chapter 19.14 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Ms. Korade stated that the Vesting Tentative Map Ordinance was passed by State statute in 1986; it addressed concerns of developers who would obtain approval for a project and then the applicable city would change the rules for development. The said Ordinance established rules for development procedure that would be set at the time of the final approval of a vested subdivision map. In reference to the subject application, Ms. Korade stated that the approval by the Planning Comission would give the applicant the right to proceed in accordance with the plans that were submitted and the conditions that the Planning Commission approved. She said that future requirements for zoning, development fees, etc. could not be changed. Mr. Hewicker stated that the vesting tentative map ordinance insures that any change to the General Plan, • the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, or any new traffic management initiatives will not have an affect on the proposed project. The vesting does not obligate the City to approve the project, but he said that once the project has been completed for filing, then the applicant has the right within the timeframe to proceed with the project. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pers6n, Ms. Korade replied that the vesting right at the time of development would be subject to the current rules of the City. Ms. Korade stated that an applicant has three years to obtain approval of a final map with a two year possible extension, and the applicant has the vested right of one year following the approval of the final map, with a one year possible extension. .Therefore, the applicant could have up to seven years to complete the project under the current rules of development to complete the project. Ms. Korade further replied that the vesting map does not affect the use permit inasmuch as a use permit regulates the use of the project. She said that the applicant may have the right to build a project but they may have to reapply for a use permit, should the project construction not be begun within 24 months and diligently pursued to completion. -13- COMMISSIONERS y�G; 9N9� 0 August 18, 1988 �+y goy c� o gm CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROMMEALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Hewicker replied that if the applicant pulled a building permit to start construction, they have started to exercise their use permit; however, if they did not pursue construction diligently then there could be a problem regarding the building permit. Mr. Hewicker asked if a vesting resubdivision map was approved, the applicant allowed the use permit to expire, and the traffic study was denied, can the applicant proceed with a project that is reduced in size which does not require a traffic study but could proceed under the current Traffic Phasing Ordinance as opposed to any new traffic management initiative that might be passed? Ms. Korade replied that if the applicant has received vesting approval then there is the right to develop in accordance with the terms of the vesting approval. If the Traffic Study was denied, then the applicant could develop in accordance with the vesting resubdivision providing that it was consistent with the terms of the approval of the vesting resubdivision. Ms. Korade explained that Condition No. 2 in Exhibit "A" • states "that the floor area of the project shall be reduced by an amount necessary to meet the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. ", which means that the project would be able to proceed with a reduction as long as it did not violate the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance as it exists today without complying with any future initiative revisions. Discussion ensued regarding the Traffic Phasing Ordinance between Commissioner Pomeroy and staff. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Ms. Korade replied that the vesting map could be denied when and if the applicant came back to the Planning Commission to request an extension of the application. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding a vesting tentative map as opposed to a tentative map, Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant is required to submit information for a vesting map that he would not normally be required to file in conjunction with a tentative map. He said that the purpose of the vesting map is to protect the developer when he has invested a large sum of money in the preparation of plans to develop a project. • In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the vesting resubdivision application, Mr. Hewicker and Ms. Korade replied that Planning Commission -14- COMMISSIONERS SO�m _ y�Gyyy�yNGy9CC �yQ� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX approval of the vesting resubdivision map would allow the applicant to proceed with a project with no further discretionary approvals. Mr. Hewicker stated that under the existing Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) the existing uses on the property generate 214 average daily trips (ADT), and the applicant would be able to add an additional 130 ADT without having to go through the City's TPO. Mr. Hewicker further explained the type and intensity of development which might be built on the site; some of which would not necessarily require a use permit to exceed the height limit, a use permit to exceed the .5 FAR as established by the Specific Area Plan, or the approval of a TPO override. In reference to the staff report, Mr. Hewicker explained that the Planning Commission approved the following projects to exceed .5 FAR which would require marine oriented uses: Use Permit No. 3086, 2901 West Coast Highway, of the total project's 16,253 square feet the • required marine oriented use of 1,353 square feet, 8 percent, has been leased; Use Permit No. 2051, 2081 West Coast Highway, of the total project's 8,682 square feet the required marine oriented use of 1,780 square feet, 21 percent, has been leased. Mr. Hewicker stated that if the floor area ratio of the subject project included the 46,405 square foot parking structure as part of the floor area ratio, the floor area ratio would be increased from .69 FAR to 1.36 FAR. Discussion ensued between Ms. Korade and Commissioner Debay regarding Section 19.14.030, the approval or conditional approval of a vesting tentative map. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. Said Shokrian, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He submitted four letters of approval from the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association and adjacent property owners. Mr. Shokrian stated that he and his architect, Mr. Brion Jeannette, have met with the Board of Directors of the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association so as to address their concerns; the project is an aesthetically attractive building; that the project will enhance the Mariner's Mile area; that they attempted to accommodate all of the needs and issues that are important to the City and to -15- COMMISSIONERS 9 tP m NIX1 << O August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R&WALL INDEX the homeowners; that the project has been designed to create a village -type atmosphere and to increase more pedestrian traffic and a service oriented mall for the residents; that the project is small in size and density compared to adjacent projects in the area; that the building will not result in an abrupt change in scale from the surrounding buildings; the proposed building is 34 feet high and is set back from West Coast Highway; that the building is designed and set back so as to preserve views; that the landscaping and open space will be aesthetically pleasing; that the building area over .5 FAR which will be used for marine oriented uses includes only 4,500 square feet of the total building space; that the applicant would not be creating traffic problems; and he concluded that he perceives problems if a project is not developed on the site by 1990. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n concerning the project contributing traffic congestion, and Mr. Shokrian's foregoing statement regarding the TPO, Mr. Shokrian replied that he does not deny the existence of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding Mr. Shokrian's foregoing statement that the marine - oriented use would constitute 4,500 square feet, Mr. Shokrian explained how said square footage was calculated inasmuch as the staff report states 6,400 square feet of buildable area would require incentive use. Mr. Hewicker explained that the buildable area is arrived at by multiplying 34,191 square feet times .19 FAR. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Shokrian replied that some of the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" are acceptable to him, and that Mr. Jeannette would completely respond to the question. In reference to the pending China Palace Restaurant lawsuit, Mr. Shokrian explained for clarification that he has been informed by the Court of Appeal that during the month of September there would be a decision on the hearing. He stated that if the decision would be in his favor that the China Palace Restaurant would operate on a monthly basis including one month's notice to vacate. If the decision would be against him, Mr. Shokrian explained that he would have to wait until the China Palace Restaurant lease expires in September, 1991. -16- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Mr. Brion Jeannette, Architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the applicant is requesting a modification to allow 22 percent compact parking spaces; that the maximum height is proposed to be 34 feet; and that the floor area ratio exceeds .5 FAR. Mr. Jeannette stated that the intent is to create a nautical theme in the Mariner's Mile area that will enhance the destination point concept of a village area. In reference to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Mr. Jeannette objected that the proposed project should be penalized for the traffic problems that have been created in the area from previous developments, and he emphasized that the development would enhance the area. Mr. Jeannette stated that he had conferred with DKS Traffic Consultants, who had spoken to staff, and that the consultants had suggested mitigation measures. Discussion ensued between Chairman PersGn and Mr. Jeannette regarding the information that Mr. Jeannette was considering to submit to the Planning Commission regarding issues which might mitigate the TPO. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that if the building would be used for office the project would be able to pass the TPO. He said that if the project provided access to West Coast Highway it would relieve the congestion at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Riverside • Drive, that may allow a change in the ratio back towards more retail and less office. Mr. Hewicker stated that by providing access on West Coast Highway and -17- Mr. Jeannette presented a slide show of the proposed project depicting the area that would be demolished so as to construct the project; he compared the 34 foot height of the proposed project to the height of the adjacent and nearby developments on West Coast Highway; the view from the surrounding areas and the affect that the proposed project would have on the adjacent sites; the architectural design of the proposed building; the setbacks to West Coast Highway; the proposed landscaped area; the parking area; and that if West Coast Highway is widened the proposed landscaping and structure would continue to enhance the village -type atmosphere. iIn response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Jeannette replied that the views from Cliff Drive to the bay that were shown on the slides were in direct proportion to the buildings surrounding the area. In reference to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Mr. Jeannette objected that the proposed project should be penalized for the traffic problems that have been created in the area from previous developments, and he emphasized that the development would enhance the area. Mr. Jeannette stated that he had conferred with DKS Traffic Consultants, who had spoken to staff, and that the consultants had suggested mitigation measures. Discussion ensued between Chairman PersGn and Mr. Jeannette regarding the information that Mr. Jeannette was considering to submit to the Planning Commission regarding issues which might mitigate the TPO. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that if the building would be used for office the project would be able to pass the TPO. He said that if the project provided access to West Coast Highway it would relieve the congestion at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Riverside • Drive, that may allow a change in the ratio back towards more retail and less office. Mr. Hewicker stated that by providing access on West Coast Highway and -17- COMMISSIONERS August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROM ALL INDEX eliminating the China Palace Restaurant, it would destroy a major justification for approving the proposed building height in excess of 26 feet. In response to a question posed by Mr. Jeannette regarding if a building exceeding 10,000 square feet would not automatically be subject to a TPO, Mr. Hewicker explained that by giving credit for the China Palace Restaurant and the adjacent radio shop which are currently located on the site and will be removed, staff has given credit for 214 ADT and the TPO allows an additional 130 ADT. Mr. Jeannette stated that a building could be redesigned but he was not certain if the building would meet the needs of the residents in the area inasmuch as the development would provide local mixed uses. Discussion ensued between Mr. Jeannette and Commissioner Debay regarding the need for additional marine - oriented uses in the area based on the foregoing statement by Mr. Hewicker regarding the vacancy rate in the Mariner's Mile area. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. In reference to the foregoing Condition No. 2, Mr. Jeannette and Chairman Pers6n discussed the applicant's consideration to redesign the project so as to meet the TPO standards. Chairman Pers6n explained that the Planning Commission is required to approve only the project that has been applied for, and Mr. Jeannette stated that based on that conclusion the applicant would request that the foregoing Condition No. 2 be deleted and the Planning Commission override the TPO. In reference to Condition No. 6 which states "that no building permit shall be issued prior to the demolition of all buildings currently on the site. ", Mr. Jeannette requested that the condition be modified to state that the applicant could not occupy the building until the China Palace Restaurant has been demolished. Discussion ensued between Mr. Jeannette, Planning Commission, and staff regarding the construction of the project so as to not impact said restaurant, and the location of the required restaurant parking until the restaurant building has been demolished. In reference to Condition No. 23 which states that "this use permit shall expire -18- COMMISSIONERS o� �0 Gr �� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R ALL INDEX unless exercised within 24 months..", Mr. Jeannette concluded that the applicant may request that the use permit be extended one year so as to expire in 1991 when the China Palace Restaurant lease would be terminated. Mr. Jeannette commented that the construction could commence on the site prior to October 24, 1991, when the lease expires so as to activiate the use permit. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding equipment on the roof of the proposed project, Mr. Jeannette replied that the only equipment that would be penetrating would be plumbing vents. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the parking structure, Mr. Jeannette described the two level parking structure. He stated that the lower floor is subterranean by four feet and the upper floor is ten feet above the natural grade. Mr. James O'Brian, 611 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa, Attorney for Mr. Shokrian, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. O'Brian discussed the Traffic Phasing • Ordinance and the provisions of the Ordinance. He said that his review of the Ordinance was to determine if the Ordinance would be subject to challenge and he concluded that it is not, that it is well drafted, and that the City Attorney's Office did an able job. Mr. O'Brian stated that he studied the Ordinance as it applies to the particular factual situation, and he commented that the staff report indicates that there are ways to mitigate the application of the Ordinance but that none of them apply to the subject project. He said that one of the mitigating means would be to contribute to a fund where there was a proposal to do some alterations to the offending intersection within 48 months and it is acknowledged that is not a feasible possibility in this case. Mr. O'Brian referred to page 9 of the staff report, and he stated that staff is of the view that there must be a finding set forth by the Planning Commission the reasons that the benefits of the project including trip generation reduction outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transporation facilities. He said that the staff report refers to Section 15.40.030(D) of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and the staff reads that the benefits of the project "shall" include trip generation reductions; however, he said that he reads it that the benefits of the project "may" include trip -19- COMMISSIONERS rlo m"a. August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX generation reductions. Mr. O'Brian commented that if it is "may ", then the Planning Commission may consider all aspects of the project in considering whether to override the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mr. O'Brian suggested that from a casual reading of the Ordinance as well as a careful reading of the Ordinance that it is not mandatory that there be trip generation reduction only that it is one of the elements that may be considered. He said that if that criteria is used and the Planning Commission considers all of the aspects that have been presented that speak favorably to the project, then the Planning Commission has the authority to indicate that the benefits outweigh the negative impact to override that Ordinance. Mrs. Gail Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive, President of the Newport Heights Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Demmer stated that the proposed project is an exemplary example of the design principles which enhances the village atmosphere of Mariner's Mile. She stated that said Association supports the large setbacks that will provide substantial landscaping, and the available parking spaces for the patrons and employees. She said that said Association has concerns regarding the preservation of public views from the public parks; that the project shall exceed .5 FAR; that said Association challenges marine - oriented use to compromise the height and density in Mariner's Mile; that the view corridors be maintained; that there be no mitigation on Avon Street; that Cliff Drive Park and Avon Street are the only buffers in the intense commercial development that have continued to progress beyond .5 FAR; that the residents oppose commercial parking and traffic through their neighborhood; that the residents oppose ingress /egress on Avon Street; that they object to no curb cuts at the subject location on West Coast Highway; and that said Association supports the foregoing Condition No. 2 and Condition No. 5 regarding preservation of views. Ms. Korade referred to page 9 and Section 15.40.030(D) and Mr. O'Brian's statement, and the interpretation of the sentence that states "that the benefits of the project, including trip generation reductions, outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities.. ". She stated that if the paranthetical statement "including trip generation • reduction ", is removed, the intent of the section is to require an analysis of whether "the benefits of the -20- COMMISSIONERS V�o b August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX project outweigh the project's anticipated negative impacts on transportation facilities ". She said the primary section is the balancing analysis of benefits VS. negatives and examination of the impact on transportation facilities. Ms. Korade stated that the term "including trip generation reduction ", requires an analysis if it is of benefit, and indicates an intent that the benefits should be transportation related. This could include an analysis of benefits other than trip generation reduction but the benefits of the project should be transportation related and the detriment should be transportation related. What this Section requires is a weighing of transportation benefits against transportation negatives. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Ms. Korade replied that the correct word would be "that the benefits of the project 'should' include an analysis of trip generation reductions ", but that "trip generation reduction" alone is not necessarily required. • Mr. Don Williams, 2936 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Williams referred to Mr. Jeannette's slide presentation, and he addressed the loss of view from the park to the bay; he contradicted the height of the Newport Import building; that the traffic on Avon Street would require that the street be completed to Newport Boulevard; the loss of view corridors; and that post office employees are parking on residential streets. Mr. Hewicker stated that he was informed that the post office employees would park in an area that would be more accessible to them, if available; however, until then they consider parking on Avon Street, Riverside Drive, and Cliff Drive as public parking areas. In response to a concern posed by Mr. Williams regarding marine - oriented uses, Mr. Hewicker replied that there are marine related uses that do not require that they be on the waterfront. Mr. Williams objected to the precedent relating to height and density that has been set on Mariner's Mile. Mr. Don Webb, ,City Engineer, referred to Mr. Williams' concerns regarding Avon Street, and he said that there are no construction plans for the extension of Avon Street. He stated that the City Council is currently considering additional parking spaces on Avon Street . that would include a cul -de -sac behind Newport Imports, it would preclude the extension, but it would not require the extension. Mr. Webb stated that Avon Street -21- COMMISSIONERS August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX is not on a Master Plan of Circulation, it is a local street right -of -way, and to remove the street would be to abandon the street right -of -way. Mr. Webb stated that Avon Street connection would not be directly to Old Newport Boulevard but it would connect to Santa Ana Avenue. Mr. Dennis Harwood, 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Irvine, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Jack Mau, owners and operators of the China Palace Restaurant. Mr. Harwood requested that the Planning Commission take no action to prejudice the rights of his clients. He said that the Court has determined that the lease runs until 1991, that Mr. Shokrian has appealed that decision, and that the argument on the appeal will be heard in September. He stated that the China Palace Restaurant and the parking area are in the possession of Mr. and Mrs. Mau until 1991. He suggested that it should be based on those facts that the Planning Commission should reach their determination. Mr. Harwood stated that Mr. Mau has an • approved parking agreement insuring that 20 parking spaces will be provided adjoining the restaurant's site which would be the area that the proposed project would be developed, and he addressed concerns regarding the impact of future traffic congestion in the area. Ms. Korade referred to Mr. Harwood's statement requesting that the Planning Commission abstain or base their decision on the existing litigation between the property owner and lessee. Ms. Korade stated that it is the position of the City Attorney's Office that the action of the Planning Commission does not affect the existing disputed property rights. If the Planning Commission granted any type of use permit, approve a traffic study, recommend the vesting resubdivision, this would not give the applicant any right to contravene another party's existing property rights. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n regarding the foregoing Condition No. 6 requiring the demolition of all buildings currently on the site, Mr. Hewicker replied that the City did not want to get into a position where a building permit would be issued for the new building, allow the construction of that building to proceed, and then a point would be reached where the City could not issue an Occupancy Permit and then have the applicant demand or sue the City. -22- COMMISSIONERS August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to deny Traffic Study No. 48, Use Permit Motion NO. 3290, and Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 subject to the findings in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion. She explained that she would not override the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and that the Planning Commission cannot consider a redesign of the proposed project as suggested by Mr. Jeannette, without seeing the plan. Commissioner Winburn indicated an interest in seeing the traffic mitigation for the exit on West Coast Highway as opposed to ingress /egress on Avon Street. She addressed the project's bulk; that the marine- oriented uses designated for the two developments on West Coast Highway are prsently not as successful as was anticipated. Commissioner Winburn stated that she approves the design of the building and the project. • Ms. Korade suggested an additional sentence be added to Finding No. 4, Traffic Study, so as to address previous discussions: "that the benefits of the project do not outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities." Ms. Korade explained that said sentence would clarify concerns regarding "may" and "shall ", that the finding would migate any objection of said distinction. The maker of the motion concurred with the suggested amendment to Condition No. 4. • Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the motion. He said that the project would improve what is presently on the site; however, he supported the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would not consider overriding the Traffic Phasing Ordinance under the circumstances. He explained that the residents are concerned with traffic and congestion, that he likes the project, that if the application included a use that would generate an acceptable level of traffic, then he would not have a problem with the request. -23- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS C0 Gyy9 oy C` 9yo August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX All Ayes Motion was voted on to deny Traffic Study No. 48, Use Permit No. 3317, and Vesting Resubdivision No. 876, subject to the findings in Exhibit "B ", including amended Finding No. 4, Traffic Study, as previously stated. MOTION CARRIED. Traffic Study 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. 2. That the project generated traffic makes worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at the intersection Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue. 3. That the only available traffic improvement which would result in compliance with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is clearly beyond the scope of this project, and is not anticipated to be • constructed within 48 months. 4. That the project does not include any trip generation reductions which will.allow an exception to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. That the benefits of the project do not outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. Use Permit No. 3317 1. That, due to its size, the proposed project will result in traffic in excess of that permitted under the CIty's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 2. That the. project is not consistent with the requirements of the General Plan which places the subject property and adjacent properties in a specific plan area in order "to resolve problems of traffic conflicts, parking, and access... ". 3. That the request for increased building height could result in the impairment of views from the lower sidewalk at Cliff Drive View Park. • 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3317 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the -24- COMMISSIONERS ya°\fflh'\0 Ask as August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RONWCALL INDEX 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. Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 1. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans in that it increases problems of traffic conflicts. 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the density of development inasmuch as the proposed project does not meet the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. That the approval of Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 will, 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 to the general welfare of the City. A. Traffic Studv No. 49 (Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to accept a revised traffic study so as to TS No.49 permit the establishment of a restaurant in conjunction with the approved auto dealership located on property UP3229A within the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan which includes a request to Continued override the requirements of the Traffic Phasing to Ordinance. The proposal also includes the acceptance of 9 -8 -88 an environmental document. AND B. Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended)(Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of an automobile dealership which exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Height Limitation District, on property located in • the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposed amendment -25- COMMISSIONERS y�G 9N 99 q 0 August 18, 1988 yo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROM ALL INDEX includes a request to permit the establishment of a restaurant facility with on -sale beer and wine in a portion of the auto dealership. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 87 -106 (Resubdivision No. 840), located at 3000 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Lee West, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that Item No. 5, Traffic Study No. 49 and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) be continued to the September 8, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. n * Motion was made and voted on to continue the subject A Ayes item to the September 8, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. A. Traffic Study No. 50 (Public Hearing) Item N0.6 Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the TS No.50 construction of a 138 unit residential condominium development on property located in the Villa Point TTM11937 Planned Community. CROP No.9 AND B Vesting Tentative Map of Tract No 11937 Approved (Revised)(Public Hearing) Request to revise a previously approved Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 which permitted the subdivision of 26.9 acres of land into two lots for residential condominium development and a residual parcel not for development. The proposed revision to the tentative map includes a request to approve the subdivision as a Vesting Tentative Map, delete Lot 2 from the proposed subdivision and reduce the number of dwelling units from 154 to 138. -26- COMMISSIONERS 9 N � dG��9�NOy�`C �yc August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX AND C. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9 (Amended) Request to amend a previously approved coastal residential development permit which established the affordable housing requirements for the Villa Point residential condominium development. The proposed amendment involves a request to amend the conditions for affordable housing within the subject project. LOCATION: Portions of Block 55 and 94, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1200 East Coast Highway, on the northeasterly corner of Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway, across from Irvine Terrace. ZONE: P -C • APPLICANT: Regis Contractors Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEERS: Adams /Streeter, Irvine. James Hewicker, Planning Director, suggested that the following conditions be added to Vesting Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937: Condition No. 49: "That this vesting tentative map and all vested rights contained herein shall expire if the map has not been recorded within three (3) years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. If the Final Map is approved, the vested rights shall last for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval of the -Final Map." Condition No. 50: "That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the approval of the Final Map." The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dmohowski concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including recommended Conditions No. 49 and No. 50, with the exception of Condition No. 1, Coastal • Residential Development Permit No. 9 regarding the affordable housing requirement. In reference to Condition No. 1, Mr. Dmohowski stated that staff has _P7- COMMISSIONERS yea ms \Krlo 0 Am 9� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R ALL INDEX recommended 20 percent of the units be affordable to lower income families over a period of 20 years, and that The Irvine Company is requesting that the requirement be 15 percent affordable units over a period of 15 years. In reference to the Housing Element, Mr. Dmohowski explained that The Irvine Company does not believe that there is a justification for requiring the level of affordable housing as well as the length of term as suggested by staff inasmuch as the density of the project is 15 units per acre. He stated that there is no form of financial governmental assistance, and no density bonus is contemplated. Mr. Dmohowski stated that The Irvine Company is utilizing existing entitlement authorized under the General Plan for the Newport Center area. Mr. Dmohowski stated that the requirements that staff has recommended to establish income levels and rent levels are more strict than previous requirements; however, he said that The Irvine Company would agree to said requirements to show a good faith effort toward the housing assistance program and goals. He stated that the terms of the condition impose an excessive economic burden on the project compared to other projects in a similar situation. Mr. Dmohowski requested offsite consideration of establishing housing at Baywood Apartments inasmuch as it would be a convenient location in terms of employment, day care facilities, and shopping. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the residual parcel, Mr. Dmohowski replied that said parcel is subject to the General Plan Up -date; however, he said that The Irvine Company would prefer the site be designated a similar density as Phase One of the vesting parcel. Ms. Barbara Tappan, 1007 Dolphin Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Tappan stated her concerns regarding the projected traffic congestion at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road, and the noise emitting from the automobiles coming from Balboa Island and waiting for the traffic light at said intersection. She explained that Irvine Terrace residents are adversely affected by the noise and fumes . of the automobiles that are waiting at the traffic signal at said intersection. In response to questions posed by Ms. Tappan, Don Webb, City Engineer, replied -28- COMMISSIONERS y�G�y � °oy9CC 9QA,� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROMPEALL INDEX that the traffic generated by the proposed development would be comparatively small in comparison to the total traffic on East Coast Highway. He said that the intersection will be under construction within the next four months due to substantial widening of East Coast Highway that will adequately accommodate the traffic generated by the subject project. Mr. Webb further replied that a third left turn lane will be added at East Coast Highway eastbound going north on to Jamboree Road, that construction will commence in December 1988, and will be completed in December 1989. Mr. Hewicker stated that the proposed project's traffic will exit onto Back Bay Drive. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Traffic Study 50, Vesting Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 (Revised) and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including added Conditions No. 49 and No. 50, and to revise . Condition No. 1, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9 to state "that at least 15 percent of the total number of units (21) be made available to Lower Income Families.. ". Mr. Hewicker referred to The Irvine Company's request to modify Condition No. 1 to state 15 percent of the total number of units for a period of 15 years. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, stated that if the project would be located in another area of the City that staff may not have an objection to The Irvine Company's request; however, he said that the reason for staff's recommendation is that there has been an attempt to provide affordable housing within Newport Center and he referred to the Newport Village project that would have provided 150 additional affordable units. In reference to the General Plan Review, he commented that staff has recommended that Newport Village be converted to a low rise, low intensity office project which would eliminate the 150 affordable units; however, he recommended that Villa Point and Corporate Plaza provide the affordable housing in Newport Center. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, • Mr. Lenard replied that staff would object to the transfer of affordable units to Baywood Apartments inasmuch as staff is attempting to provide affordable -29- COMMISSIONERS 0 August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX housing within new projects as opposed to existing projects. Commissioner Merrill and Chairman Pers6n discussed the recommended land use change at the Newport Village site from residential use to low rise office use. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Lenard replied that no park fees or fair share fees have been waived for the proposed project. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would support the motion, and he Amended * recommended the motion be amended to state "..for a period of 15 years.. ". Commissioner Merrill commented that he would support the Baywood Apartment site, as suggested, inasmuch as services are conveniently located. The maker of the motion agreed to the suggested amendment to Condition No. 1 as stated. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Winburn and Mr. Lenard regarding the change of the affordable housing provision from previously approved ten year requirements • to recently approved thirty year requirements. Mr. Lenard explained that the change occurred because of concerns that have been expressed by the Planning Commission and the City Council that ten years would not be long enough if the City wanted to have a meaningful program. Commissioner Di Sano stated that his motion indicated that 15 years is considered to be a compromise. Chairman Pers6n disagreed inasmuch as he said that the Planning Commission has been attempting to achieve more than a 10 year affordable housing requirement for several years; that there have been previous discussions that 30 years may not even be long enough for some projects; that there has been pressure that projects be approved for longer than 10 years; and. that there are previously approved projects that have nearly completed the 10 year affordable housing requirement. Substitute Commissioner Pomeroy made a substitute motion to approve Motion * Traffic Study No. 50, Vesting Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 (Revised) and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including added conditions No. 49 and No. 50 as suggested by staff, and to amend Condition No. 1 of the Coastal Residential Development • Permit No. 9 to state "That at least 20 percent of the total number of units (28) be made available to 10 -30- COMMISSIONERS hlr\lp August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX percent of the low income families and 10 percent to the moderate income families (100 percent of median) for a period of 12 years. That the units to be made available to moderate income families shall be on site and the units to be made available to low income families: shall be located at an offsite location at the developers option. Ayes * * * Condition No. 1 of the foregoing substitute motion was Noes * * * voted on,-and MOTION FAILED. Ayes * * * Condition No. 1 of the original motion was voted on, and Noes * * * MOTION FAILED. Motion * Motion was made to approve Traffic Study No. 50, Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 (Revised) and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9 (Amended), subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the addition of Conditions No. 49 and No. 50. S titute Substitute motion was made to revise Condition No. 1, n * Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9 to state "that at least 20 percent of the total number of units (28) be made available to Lower Income Families (less than 808 of median) that can be located offsite or at the developers option for a period of 20 years... ". Commissioner Winburn stated that the Planning Commission has been attempting to provide a residential area and affordable housing in Newport Center for many years. She said that affordable housing has been "dumped" into Baywood Apartments on numerous occasions, and on that basis she commented that she would not support the substitute motion. Commissioner Debay stated that she would oppose the substitute motion inasmuch as she had a concern that it would not be favorable to continually relocate affordable housing to Baywood Apartments. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Commissioner Pomeroy replied that he did not specifically state Baywood Apartments, that it would be at the developers option that the affordable housing could be located offsite. Chairman Pers6n asked the maker of the substitute motion if he would amend his motion to state "that 10 percent of the total number of units may be offsite and 10 -31- COMMISSIONERS ZmG�Z oN'y�! ryQ� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX Amended * percent of the total number of units be onsite "? The maker of the motion agreed to said amendment. Mr. Lenard suggested that affordable housing could be transferred to Baywood Apartments, Newport North, or Mariner's Apartments. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the offsite location as stated in the substitute motion be amended to specify Baywood Apartments. Ayes * * * Substitute motion as amended to approve Condition No. 1, * * Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9, was voted Noes on, MOTION FAILED. Motion was voted on to approve Traffic Study No. 50, Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 (Revised) and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9 (Amended), subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including All Ayes the addition of Conditions No. 49 and No. 50. MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Findings: i1. The Planning Commission and the City Council have previously approved and certified an environmental document in conjunction with their consideration of the original Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 and related applications. 2. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all applicable and feasible mitigation measures discussed in the previously certified environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. B. Traffic Study: Approve the Traffic Study with Findings and subject to the Condition listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -1 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - • generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak -32- COMMISSIONERS ymG' t^yo99� 2 F% ?,yoXyll O August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX period on any leg of four critical intersection, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at one critical intersection, which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of more than .9000. 3. That the Traffic Study suggests circulation system improvements which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at the critical intersection. CONDITION: 1. That prior to occupancy of any portion of the project facilities, the circulation system improvements described in the Traffic Study for the intersection at Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive will be in place (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. C. Vesting Tentative Mau of Tract No 11937: Recommend that the City Council approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 subject to the following Findings and Conditions of Approval: FINDINGS: 1. 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. 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. . 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through -33- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 6. That public improvements may be required of the developer in accordance with Section 19.08.020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a final map be recorded and that it shall be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans, except as noted below. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. • 4. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the street improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit or record the tract map prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. 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. 6. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. 7. That the design of the private streets and drives conform with the City's private street policy (L- 4), except as approved by the Public Works Department. The basic roadway width shall be a minimum of 32 feet. The location, width, configuration and concept of the private street and drive system shall be subject to further review and • approval by the City Traffic Engineer. -34- COMMISSIONERS o. ymG�\10C\r`P\ � August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX 8. That the intersection of the private streets with public streets be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non- critical locations, subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 9. That no control gate at the entrance shall be allowed unless the entrance area is redesigned to allow for a turn - around to be provided prior to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. 10. The easements for public emergency and security ingress, egress and public utility purposes on all private streets be dedicated to the City, and that . all easements be shown on the tract map. 11. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with the width to be approved by the Public Works Department, 12. That a Non - Standard Improvement Agreement be provided for textured pavement treatments proposed over public streets or public easements. 13. That the existing kiosk in Parcel #2 be relocated to provide an emergency road connection to Parcel #1 and that an accompanying easement be provided across parcel #2 for access. 14. That all vehicular access rights to East Coast Highway be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 15. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation department and the Public Works Department. 16. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. -35- COMMISSIONERS a� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX 17. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the final map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 18. That right -of -way be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposes along Back Bay Drive for a minimum 60 foot right -of -way width. 19. That full street improvements be constructed along Back Bay Drive. These improvements shall include but not be limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, street lights and landscaping (including slopes). 20. That the Water Capital Improvement fee be paid. 21. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior • to issuance of any building permits. 22. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 23. That Parcel #1 accept the drainage from Parcel #2. 24. That an off -site storm drain system be constructed conveying the drainage from Parcels #1 and 2 to the Bay. This storm drain shall also pick up drainage from an existing 18 inch drain located in East Coast Highway. 25. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 26. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 27. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping programs designed to minimize impact of haul operations. -36- COMMISSIONERS yea 9o�P y'� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX 28. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department, and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 29. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 30. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer and based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 31. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the • discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. this report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 32. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 33. That perimeter fencing shall conform to the maximum height of 6 feet as provided by the Villa Point Planned Community Development Standards unless a modification is approved by the City in accordance with Chapter 20.81 of the Municipal Code. Those portions of the perimeter fencing adjacent to East Coast Highwy and Back Bay Drive shall maintain as a minimum, the setbacks shown on the approved site plan. 34. All proposed development shall provide for vacuum sweeping of parking areas. 35. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the developer and grading contractors of the results of the study. 37 COMMISSIONERS A� 4 y�GX �9m�9c` vp� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant ,r cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the finds. 36. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and /or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and /or developer. 37. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and /or developer to attend pregrade meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. 38. Should fossils be discovered during grading operations, the landowner shall donate the fossils collected to a non - profit institution. 39. That prior to the occupancy of any unit, a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense, shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the noise impact from East Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive on the project does not exceed 65 db CNEL for outside living areas and the requirements of law for interior spaces. 40. That prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance to the satisfaction of the Planning Director provided further, that a portion of the previously approved park dedication credit for the mouth of Big Canyon may be used to satisfy the park dedication requirement for this project. 41. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. -38- COMMISSIONERS o. ym °t Q August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX 42. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. 43. Upstairs patio areas will be glassed in for all areas within the 65 CNEL contour. Units within these buildings will also be provided with aluminum sliding windows of normal 1/8 inch thickness. Downstairs units within the 65 CNEL contour will be shielded from the noise source by a barrier approved by the Planning Director. 44. Parking areas shall be paved early during construction. 45. Openable windows shall be used to allow cooling by normal breezes. 46. A lighting plan which describes how energy conservation has been incorporated into the lighting scheme shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department. 47. A solar hot water system will be installed for the community pool and spa. 48. Prior to approval of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall consult with the Public Works Department and the Orange County Transit District regarding the provision of a bus stop and related amenities (i.e., shelter, bench) along East Coast Highway adjacent to the project site. If required, the applicant shall be responsible for the installation of a permanent bus stop along East Coast Highway. 49. That this vesting tentative map and all vested rights contained herein shall expire if the map has not been recorded within three (3) years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. If the final map is approved, the vested rights shall last for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval of the final map. 50. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the approval of the final map. 39- COMMISSIONERS \OL9!� yo August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX D. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9: Approve Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9, with the following Findings, and subject to the Conditions listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That the project as conditioned, provides 28 affordable housing units. 2. That the provision of affordable housing is consistent with the requirements of State law relative to low- and moderate - income housing in the Coastal Zone. CONDITIONS: 1. That at least 208 of the total number of units (28) be made available to Lower Income Families (less than 808 of median) for a period of 20 years. Preference shall be given to HUD Section 8 Certificate and Voucher holders in the rental of • the units. Rents shall be at the Section 8 Fair market rents for a 2 bedroom unit as if occupied by a family of four, and a 1 bedroom unit as if occupied by a family of 2, regardless of family size. Income limits shall be based on family size using the section 8 table. 2. That prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director, which guarantees the provision of "affordable" units on -site in accordance with the requirements of Condition No. 1 above. -40- COMMISSIONERS ymomymmNOy� << 9Qm� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROMEALL INDEX Vesting Resubdivision No. 880 (Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to approve a vested resubdivision so as to Vesting create six numbered parcels for office development and Resub #880 parking and one lettered parcel for off - street parking and circulation purposes where eight parcels currently Approved exist, on property located in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. LOCATION: Lots 6 -11, 19 and 20, and a portion of Parcel "B" of Parcel Map 93- 45 -46, ( Resubdivision No. 465), located at 6 -11, 19 and 20 Corporate Plaza, on the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive, in Corporate Plaza. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach • ENGINEER: Western Pacific Engineering, Inc., Costa Mesa James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the City Attorney's Office has recommended that Condition No. 21 be added to Exhibit "A" to put the applicant on notice regarding the vesting: "That this vesting resubdivision and all vested rights contained herein shall expire if the map has not been recorded within three (3) years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. If the map is recorded, the vested rights shall last for a period of one (1) year from the date of recordation." The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Neish, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Neish stated that The Irvine Company concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" including staff's recommended Condition No. 21. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Debay and Commissioner Pomeroy indicated • that the vacant lot at Avocado Avenue and East Coast Highway currently is an eyesore and needs improvement. -41- COMMISSIONERS c�y�o y c gyQ9 August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLr CALL INDEX Motion • Motion was made to approve Vesting Resubdivision No. 880 All Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including added Condition No. 21. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed 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 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permit unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 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 the existing subdivision agreement and accompanying sureties be revised to reflect current costs and that a new subdivision agreement and surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements not already bonded if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. • 4. That each building be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the -42- COMMISSIONERS o August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review approval of the Traffic Engineer before issuance of the first grading permit. 6. That the intersection of the private streets and Avocado Avenue be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 7. That easements for public emergency and security ingress, egress and public utility purposes on all private streets be dedicated to the City and that • all easements be shown on the parcel maps. 8. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 9. That Avocado Avenue be improved to a minimum of secondary arterial standards between East Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive, and that improvements be completed by January 1, 1990. 10. That street, drainage and.utility improvements be shown of standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 11. That the hydrology and hydraulic studies (submitted by the developer) be subject to further review by the Public Works Department. The hydrology study shall include both on -site and off -site drainage to determine what is necessary to protect the subject development from flooding during a 100 year storm frequency. The storm drain system shall be designed to handle 25 year storm frequency with no buildings being flooded during a 100 year storm • frequency. The developer may be required to install retention basins upstream from the proposed -43- COMMISSIONERS a+yyo� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROM ALL INDEX development or enlarge the existing downstream storm drain system to satisfy the requirement. That a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities be prepared for the development prior to issuance of grading permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the review shall be the responsibility of the developer. 12. That additional right -of -way be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposes along Avocado Avenue between East Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive to provide a total street right -of -way of 95' minimum with additional width at East Coast Highway to provide a free right turn movement as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 13. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 14. That the Public Works Department plan check and • inspection fee be paid. 15. That any Edison transformer serving the site be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L. 16. That non - standard improvement agreement be provided for any private streets having textured paving over utility easements. 17. That a traffic signal be installed at the intersection of San Miguel Drive and Avocado Avenue and that a taper be provided on the northerly side of San Miguel Drive in order to provide an appropriate transition as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 18. That a traffic study be prepared to determine if deceleration and /or acceleration lanes are necessary at the entrances to the site on Avocado Avenue. If deceleration lanes and acceleration lanes are shown to be needed, additional right -of- ways shall be dedicated and improvements made. 19. That sight distance shall be provided at all street • and drive intersections per Std 110 -L. -44- COMMISSIONERS .O� �% G v N A 9y 4s y� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX 20. That the developer will fund 1008 of the loss of a traffic signal at the intersection of Avocado and Farallon if signal warrants are met within 5 years of the date of the last certificate of occupancy. 21. That this vesting resubdivision and all vested rights contained herein shall expire if the map has not been recorded within three (3) years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. If the map is recorded, the vested rights shall last for a period of one (1) year from the date of recordation. Amendment No. 668 (Public HearinO Item No.8 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 23 so Amendment as to change the existing bayside setback on property No. 668 located at 16 Harbor Island Drive (Lot 16, Tract 802) from 15 feet to 0 feet on the southeasterly 88 feet of the bayside boundary of Tract 802 and between 0 feet and _Approved • 7 feet on the remaining 22 feet of said bayside boundary of Tract 802. LOCATION: Lot 16, Tract No. 802, located at 16 Harbor Island, on the northerly side of Harbor Island, being the first lot adjacent to the Harbor Island Bridge, ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: William Power, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Vincent Dibiasi, 2201 Martin Street, Irvine, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Dibiasi concurred with the findings in Exhibit "A ". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. on * Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 668 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". -45- COMMISSIONERS August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROT ALL INDEX Chairman Pers6n stated that he would only support the motion on the basis that there is no opposition to the application. All Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed bayside setback is a logical extension of existing setback lines on adjoining properties. 2. That the reduction in the required bayside setback will not result in the obstruction of any existing public views and will not adversely affect existing private views. 3. That the reduction in the required bayside setback will not result in a buildable area which is inconsistent with that on other properties on Harbor Island. 4. That the triangular shape of the lot creates a difficult design situation which may be improved by the reduction of the bayside setback. Use Permit No 3306 (Review)(Discussion) Item No.9 Six month review of Use Permit No. 3306 which permitted UP3306 a change in the operational characteristics of an existing nonconforming restaurant facility located in Continued the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery to Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area, so as to 9-8 -88 change the permitted live entertainment to include jazz combos with amplified music, vocals and percussion instruments, including drums. The ' approval also included a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit the use of tandem and compact parking spaces in conjunction with a full -time valet parking service. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 129 -7 -8 (Resubdivision No. 600), located at 501- 30th Street, on the northeasterly corner of 30th Street and Villa Way, in the • Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. -46- COMMISSIONERS August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL ZmG�y�tt''r�pCf N90 9. August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL ALL INDEX ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: Joe Sperrazza, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Motion * Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3306 (Review) All Ayes to the September 8, 1988, Planning Commission meeting inasmuch as the applicant was not present at the public hearing to review the use permit with the Planning Commission. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: 11:00 p.m. Ad'ournment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -47-