Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/1976COMMISSIONERS m 1 1 N y p m c m N ROIL GAIL °z Present Motion All Ayes • Motion All Ayes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:00 P.M. nata• Aunuct 1Q_ 1976 MINUTES ----. ..-�--- '- '-' - - INDkx X X X X X X EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning Shirley Harbeck, Secretary * * * * * * * * * * X Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 5, 1976, were approved as written. Item #1 Request,to permit the extension of a previously EXTENSION approved use permit that allows additional travel USE PERMI trailers in the Newport Dunes Trailer Park. NO. 1117 AMENDED Location: Portion of Blocks 54 and 94., Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1131 Back CONT. TO Bay Drive, northerly of East Coast SEPT. 2 Highway and westerly of Jamboree Road in Newport Dunes. Zone: Unclassified Applicant: Newport Dunes, Inc., Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant This matter was opened for discussion. However, neither the applicant nor a representative was present to answer questions raised by the Commis - X sion concerning the request, therefore, motion was made to continue discussion of the extension to the meeting of September 2, 1976. Item #2 Request to permit the extension of a previously EXTENSION approved use permit that would allow the construc- USE PERMI NO. 1747 tion of an office building that exceeds the basic Page 1. COMMISSIONERS V, A m � z c m � ; -A 1 a ROIL CALL z August i Motion CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 19, 1976 INDEX .height limit within the 26/35 Foot Height Limita- EXTENSION tion District. GRANTED Location: A portion of Lot 3 and Lots 4 and 5, Tract 815, located at 617 Lido Park Drive on the northeasterly side of Lido Park Drive between Lafayette Avenue and 28th Street on the Lido Peninsula. Zone: C -2 Applicant: Lido Park Plaza, a Joint Venture, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant This matter was opened for discussion and Barry Williams, 4000 Topside Lane, Corona del Mar, partner in the joint venture, appeared before the Planning Commission to answer questions concerning the request. Referring to the Minutes of October 17, 1974, concerning the General Plan Amendment requested for the property, Commissioner Hummel questioned whether additional information as to the project's impact on traffic had been secured. City Engineer Nolan advised that further study indicated that the original traffic projection was correct in that no significant impact on traffic would occur, either by this development or the change in land use. Commissioner Balalis voiced concern that the extension was being considered without the benefit, of a public hearing. Commissioner Frederickson advised of his familiarity with the site and adjacent buildings and felt that X the extension should be granted. Therefore, motion was made that Planning Commission extend the approval of Use Permit No. 1747.to February 27, 1978. Commissioner-Hummel felt that a public hearing should be held in connection with this extension because of the nature of the request and its location. Commissioner Seely favored extension of the use permit as he felt the proposed development was appropriate for the area and conformed to the land Page 2. COMMISSIONERS T ➢ A r � A N � ID ROLL CALL % Ayes Noes • Motion dyes Abstain m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - 3 r A � August 19. 1976 MINUTES INDEX use designation_as adopted under the City's General Plan. Commissioner.Heather advised that although she opposed the original request because she felt further traffic information was needed, she would now support the extension because since that time, subsequent reports have confirmed the fact that the office use would not add to the traffic on Li.do Peninsula. X X X X X Following discussion the motion was voted on and X carried. Item #3 Request to extend a previously approved resubdivi -. EXTENSIOI sion that would permit the establishment of one RESUB- building site and the elimination of interior lot DIVISION lines where two lots and a portion of a third lot NO. 480 . now exist so as to allow the construction of an office building on the property. EXTENSIO GRANTED Location: A portion of Lot 3 and Lots 4 and 5, Tract 815, located at 617 Lido Park Drive on the northeasterly side of Lido Park Drive between Lafayette Avenue and 28th Street on the Lido Peninsula. Zone: C -2 Applicant: Lido Park Plaza, a Joint Venture, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Anacal Engineering.Co., Anaheim This matter was opened for discussion and Barry Williams, 4000 Topside Lane, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Commission in connection with this matter.. X There being no further discussion, motion was made X X X X that Planning Commission grant the extension of X Resubdivision No. 480 to February 27, 1978, sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. Page 3. COMMISSIONERS � D • ROIL CALL 0 A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f iMp � i N Auauct IQ 107A MINUTES 1NUtA 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the water and sewer connections necessary to serve this development be accomplished in a manner satisfactory to the Public Works Department. 4. That the developer shall be instructed to submit to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board the specific water quality control plan they intend to follow to insure that there will be no pollution of the bay during demolition, grading and construc- tion. #4 lItem Request to consider a draft environmental impact JAMBOREE report for the proposed widening of Jamboree Road ROAD between Eastbliff Drive (northerly intersection) iWIDENING and MacArthur Boulevard. EIR Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach APPROVED Community Development Director Hogan commented on the purpose of the public hearing and the role of the Planning Commission to make findings and recom- mendations for presentation to the City Council. City Engineer Nolan thoroughly reviewed the proposed project and advised that Jamboree Road was classi- fied as a major arterial highway on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways within the City and as such would provide 6 lanes, divided. He added that the 132 feet of right -of -way has been in existence since 1963 and that no further right -of -way width was contemplated with this project. Mr. Nolan reviewed a map showing existing improve- ments along Jamboree Road and commented on a fill widening project currently under way on the westerly side of Jamboree Road near the San Diego Creek bridge which will accommodate a bicycle trail (under separate contract) and part of the proposed widening project. He reviewed existing and future bicycle trails which will connect to Jamboree Road. Page 4. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • �pM; MINUTES N ROIL CALL i August 19 1976 INDEX Mr. Nolan reviewed the work being done by Caltrans in the area of the Corona del Mar Freeway, the, future frontage roads, and the realignment of MacArthur Boulevard and its impact on the traffic along Jamboree Road. He advised that when the Caltrans projects were completed, the traffic circulation would be greatly improved, particular- ly at the intersection of Bristol Street and Mac Arthur Boulevard. Mr: Nolan advised the Commission of the various contracts which would accomplish the proposed widening of Jamboree Road from Eastbluff Drive northerly to MacArthur Boulevard, including the widening of the bridge over San Diego Creek. He advised that the cost of the widening was estimat- ed at $380,000 for the roadway which would be shared between City gas tax funds and the County Arterial Highway Financing Program;'and $500,000 for the bridge which would be financed entirely by the County under their major bridge funding pro- gram. Mr. Nolan commented on the traffic volumes which currently exist on Jamboree Road; and that the proposed widening project is required by the volumes northerly of Eastbluff Drive. He also commented on future widening between Ford Road and Eastbluff Drive (northerly intersection). He, also pointed out the importance of processing the Environmental Impact Report as soon as.possible in order that the County could proceed with their work on the drawings and commented that any delays could result in the loss of approximately $700,000 which has been funded for the project. Other consequences of delay would include increased traffic congestion, air pollution, noise, and accident rates. Future widening of Jamboree Road beyond that proposed was of concern to the Commission and in response to the question of procedure, Mr. Nolan advised that although this Environmental Impact Report included all portions of Jamboree Road, the EIR was prepared only for the project between Eastbluff Drive (northerly intersection) and MacArthur Boulevard and all other comments were for informational purposes only. He advised that any future widening beyond that proposed would require another Environmental Impact Report; and that the opportunity for review of the project would be present at the time of the budget hearings, at the time the EIR for the project was being reviewed, and at the time the project itself was being considered. Pa a 5. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • f P ; MINUTES N on.. r... 6..., ..e+ 10- 107r w"a a a ... 7 .... , ...... INDEX Environmental Coordinator Foley commented on the Environmental Impact Report and advised that the Environmental Affairs Committee felt that the impacts could be satisfactorily mitigated as recommended. Mr. Foley reviewed the impacts of concern which included the flora and fauna, an archaeological site which exists within the project, and a potential paleontological site. He also reviewed the recommendations of the Environmental Affairs Committee and suggested the addition of . the following recommendation: "E. That the responses to the comments by the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game, the California Water Quality Control Board, and the Natural History Foundation of Orange County be incorporated in the mitigation measures." Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Ken Clissett, resident of Eastbluff and Director of the Eastbluff Homeowners Association, appeared before the Commission to comment and felt that the widening would increase the noise level on Jamboree Road and adversely effect residents in the Eastbluff area. He questioned why traffic could not be diverted to MacArthur Boulevard in a more efficient manner since that road appeared to be more of an arterial highway and suggested that all the industrial developments be made to take access on MacArthur Boulevard rather than Jamboree Road which lies adjacent to and serves residentially developed areas. He also felt that separate EIRs should be prepared for each project in order to prevent tacit approval of the entire widening of Jamboree Road from Ford Road to Mac Arthur Boulevard. At this point, City Engineer Nolan commented on efforts to establish a San Joaquin "Hills trans- portation corridor which would connect the Corona del Mar Freeway to a high capacity arterial down - coast and thus enable cars to bypass. the Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, et al highway system; and until such time as that was accomplished, the status of MacArthur Boulevard in the area of University Drive was unknown. He also commented that each of the roads has its own traffic generators which cause the existing demands, volumes, and turning patterns, and the fact that we may wish to divert traffic from one highway to another does not mean that the traffic will be diverted. Page 6. COMMISSIONERS O y m a ROIL CALL i CITY OF August 19 1976 NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES INDEX Pat Raymond, resident of Eastbliff, commented on the noise generated by traffic on Jamboree Road and felt that any widening would increase the traffic and noise. She also felt that this por- tion of the project could increase traffic on East- bluff Drive and separate the community as well as be dangerous for school children who cross East- bluff Drive. At this point Planning Commission discussed use of local streets to bypass.highways which may become congested, comparing Eastbluff with Corona del Mar, and staff felt that excessive use of Eastbluff Drive was unlikely at this time because there were several stop signs along the way and the route was much longer with a reduced speed limit. Commissioner Agee questioned the need for widening Jamboree Road since he felt the only problem was at the intersection of Bristol Street and Jamboree Road and preferred to see the allocated funds go towards some other project with a greater need, such as the bridge widening on Coast Highway. I Frank Barnes, 921 Citrus Place, Eastbluff, appeare before the Commission to comment on the existing noise and excessive speed along Jamboree Road and felt that the traffic problem which existed at Bristol Street and Jamboree Road could be solved simply by widening the two left turn lanes between the bridge and Bristol Street. He also suggested that access to the Philco -Ford facility be pro- vided on MacArthur Boulevard in order to divert traffic. Gary Schaumburg, 2900 Alta Vista Drive, appeared before the Commission to comment on the noise adjacent to the Eastbluff area. Jim Cunningham, resident of Eastbluff, appeared before the Commission and voiced concern with the noise problem along Jamboree Road adjacent to the Eastbluff area and questioned whether additional right -of -way would be taken on the west side. City Engineer Nolan responded that any future . widening would be within the existing 132 foot right -of -way and reviewed the cross- section of Jamboree Road for the purpose of clarification. Patty Carter, Attorney and resident of Eastbluff, appeared before the Commission and voiced concern Page 7. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF Auoust 19. 1976 NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES • p � w � w Eastbluff and commented on the expansion of Newpor CITY OF Auoust 19. 1976 NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES with the lack of notification to the residents of Eastbluff and commented on the expansion of Newpor Beach which was causing an increase in traffic and adding to the noise adjacent to Eastbluff. Alan Goody, resident of Eastbluff appeared before the Commission and advised that he had studied the Environmental Impact Report and felt it was complete. He also favored the widening of Jambore Road in order to move the cars through the area and avoid additional pollution. Burr Allegaert, President of Eastbluff Homeowners Association, appeared before the Commission and advised that the association had been notified of this hearing which in turn informed the residents through their newsletter. He read a portion of a letter addressed to the Mayor and City Council,. dated June 10th, by the Eastbluff Homeowners Assoc iation, which stated their opposition to the • widening of Jamboree Road from Eastbluff to Ford Road because of the traffic noise and felt that the principal traffic corridor should be the Corona del Mar Freeway and MacArthur Boulevard. Mike Kirrene, resident of Eastbluff, appeared before the Commission and commented on the age of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and questioned the justification for the proposed widening. City Engineer Nolan responded to the comments on the age of the plan and advised that since. Jamboree Road was designated as a major arterial highway in 1963, traffic studies have been made and the Master Plan of Streets and Highways has been up- dated. The existing Master Plan reflects the recommendations of extensive traffic studies made in 1974. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 P.M. and • reconvened at 9:30 P.M. Commissioner Agee felt that the problem with traffic was only at the intersection of Jamboree COMMISSIONERS W gApp C m 7 • p1 � T � rn CITY OF Aunust lq_ 1g7A NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES INDEX Road and Bristol Street and that the widening of Jamboree as proposed by this project was not justified just because the funds were available. He felt this project may be a mistake and could open the door to the widening of the entire length of Jamboree Road. He commented on the adverse effects of noise levels adjacent to the Eastbluff area as indicated on Pages 54 and 58 of the Envir- onmental Impact Report. He doubted there was any real need for the widening project and felt there were flaws in the EIR which did not reflect the real impacts being placed on the people in the Motion X Bluffs adjacent to the roadway. On this basis, motion was made that Planning Commission not accept the Environmental Impact Report as complete. because of the lack of information regarding effects of noise, nor approve the project which may give tacit approval for the massive widening of the entire roadway. Commissioner Seely opposed the motion for the following reasons. First, the fact remains that the traffic exists and will continue to increase and come into the area, not because the roadway is widened, but because of the developments which attract people to the area. The question is., are the roadways to be impacted with the additional traffic, or are they to be constructed so as to alleviate the congestion and prevent other nega- tive impacts such as air pollution, traffic accidents, diversion through the local residential streets, and increased noise. He felt that the EIR should be accepted as it does point out the various impacts and suggests specific mitigation measures. He did, however, feel that the EIR should be accepted with the clarification that it related to this project only and that any further widening would require another EIR which would contain specific mitigation measures for that project, especially as it pertained to noise. Second, this improvement directs itself specific. - ally to the problem at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street and is one reason for being the first phase. Also there is the bridge widening which is a needed improvement plus the fact that funds are available for the project. Finally, Commissioner Seely felt confident that an EIR would be required for any further develop- ment and there would be opportunity to consider the noise impact and take mitigating measures. COMMISSIONERS ➢�v � m cam Pl Y Y-4 ; • f A T ; N x A f N RM I ru I CITY OF A.,., ­+ io 1 n7 NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES - -- - -- " INDEX Commissioner Frederickson agreed with Commissioner Seely's comments and rationale and reflected the fact that urbanization was here, that a return to the past was not possible, and steps must be taken to relieve the traffic situation. Commissioner Hummel voiced concern that the Envir- onmental Impact Report did not contain data relative to noise created by the automobiles. He felt that the vehicle itself should be looked at and that planning should concern itself with the source of noise and solutions, such as law enforcement in connection with noise standards on automobiles. He was sympathetic to those people who had to live next to a major arterial highway but also pointed out that this project was a step towards the implementation of the General Plan. Commissioner Agee reiterated his position in opposition to the widening of Jamboree Road and felt that if the Planning Commission and City Council did their job in approving developments on the few large remaining sites within the City, i that traffic would not be increased to the same degree as it has in the past 5 to 10, years. He also felt there would be a slow -down in traffic problems when the connection between Bristol . Street and MacArthur Boulevard was completed... Commissioner Heather pointed out the fact that the City lies adjacent to another with an estimated population of 400,000 and those people do find their way into Newport Beach. Another factor to be considered in approval of the project was the bicycle link which will be constructed. Commissioner Balalis felt that the EIR had looked at all the aspects and referred to a statement made by the consultants when the traffic study was conducted in 1974 which said that the existing roadway system would be inadequate whether or not any additional development was permitted in the City of Newport Beach because of the development which surrounds the City. He advised of his opposition to the motion because the Master Plan of Streets and Highways indicate that the road should be widened as proposed. Commissioner Agee commented that the more lanes we have, the more traffic will be attracted to the area. Page 10. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES - -- - - W y A m � m I nu ubL 17 17fU - INDEX Ayes X • N � p to Noes X X X N X RM I rsu Motion CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES - -- - - t I I nu ubL 17 17fU - INDEX Ayes X Following discussion, the motion was voted on and Noes X X X X X failed. Motion X New motion was made that Planning Commission accept the recommendations of the Environmental. Affairs Committee; that the Environmental Impact Report be accepted only with respect to the specific project designated as the red area on the map (located between Eastbluff Drive, northerly intersection, and MacArthur Boulevard); that the Environmental Impact Report as it pertains to this project be found to be consistent with the General Plan; that the Environmental Impact Report be certified as complete with respect to the proposed project; that the following specific mitigation measures be included in the project design and specifications: A. Geology and Soils. That the recommendations contained in the report by Evans, Goffman, and McCormick (referred to on page 20 of the EIR) be incorporated into the design unless sub- sequent more detailed geologic and soils studies indicate alternative design solutions.1 B. Archaeology. That the step contained in the report by Glen Rice, February, 1976, (page 28 and appendix E of the EIR) be implemented. C. Slope Erosion. That the project include temporary and permanent erosion control pro- grams including slope preparation, drainage, and landscaping (Page 36 and 37 of the EIR). D. Construction Impacts. That the contract contain specifications to ensure that construc tion impacts are carefully controlled. E. That the responses to the comments by the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Water Quality Control Board, and the Natural History Foundation of Orange County be incorporated in the mitigation measures. Planning Commission further recommended to the City Council the following: The draft Environmental Impact Report for this project identified a potentially serious problem of increased noise levels adjacent to the Eastbluf residences which could occur in connection with Page 11. COMMISSIONERS O y A (n � P� 10 y% • f A 91 N � P Roll CALL 12 0 Ayes Noes • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f T �in er 7o 1 07 MINUTES " INDEX future road widening projects. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council instruct the staff to prepare a. complete and thorough analysis of noise impacts and suggest- ed mitigation measures at the time of any future project for road widening in that area as a part of the Environmental Impact Report. That notice be given to the homeowners and homeowners associations abutting any future proposed project. In discussing the above motion, Commissioner Balalis voiced concern with the potential increase in traffic and noise levels on Jamboree Road adja- cent to the Eastbluff area through approval of another project down the line and suggested that any EIR for such a future project address itself to these traffic impacts. The following was accepted by the maker of the motion and included as part of the recommendation: The Environmental Impact Report for any major land development project on property abutting Jamboree Road should address the problem of increased traffic which could result in additional widening of Jamboree Road and increased noise levels in the Eastbluff residential area. X X X X X The motion was voted on and carried. X. Item #5 Request to permit the remodeling of an existing USE PERMI "Snack Shop" restaurant /bakery so as to permit the NO. 1800 expansion of the dining, reception and bakery sales areas and to establish a parking lot on the CONT. TO adjoining residentially zoned property so as to SEPT. 2 provide a portion of the required parking off - site. Said application also includes a request for an off -site parking agreement and a modification to permit the off -site parking area and screen wall to encroach to within five (5) feet of the front property line on Narcissus Avenue where the Districting Map indicates a minimum 20 foot front yard setback. Page 12. COMMISSIONERS M q p Y a m ROIL CALL 'S Motion All Ayes • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Auauct 19. 1976 __ _ I - INDEX Location: Lots 4 and 5, Block T, Tract 323, located at 3446 East Coast Highway (i.e. restaurant site), and Lots 1 and 3, Block 440, Corona del Mar located at 411 -413 Narcissus Avenue (.i.e. off -site parking lots) on the northwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Narcissus Avenue in Corona del Mar. Zones: C -1 and R -2 Applicant: Far West Services, Inc., Irvine Owner: James D. Ray, Corona del Mar X Planning Commission continued this matter to the meeting of September 2, 1976. Item N6 Request to permit the construction of three USE PERMI duplexes and related garage spaces in the C -1 NO. 1801 District. The proposed duplexes encroach to within 5 feet of the rear property line (where APPROVED the Ordinance requires a 10 foot rear yard CONDI -: setback in the C -1 District when abutting an TIONALLY alley). Location: Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 3 of the Balboa Tract, located at 412, 414 and 416 East Balboa Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of East Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street on the Balboa Peninsula. Zone: C -1 Applicant: Properties West, Inc., Newport Beach Owner: Atlantic Richfield Corp., Los Angeles Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Dana Smith appeared before the Commission on behalf of the applicant and reviewed the proposed development. Page 13. COMMISSIONERS m y� T y A W c Ott I INDLX ; ` P Commissioner Hummel voiced concern with utiliza- • N �N F � tion of the proposed garages because of an 2611 CAI o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n.. .'a in role MINUTES INDLX Commissioner Hummel voiced concern with utiliza- tion of the proposed garages because of an encroaching structure across the alley and questioned the possibility of the City requiring its removal. Community Development Director Hogan advised that if the encroachment was a legal nonconforming structure, the City could not require its removal, however, the City can require its removal if it is an illegal structure. It will, therefore, be necessary for the City to research the records and make a determination. Dana Smith answered questions of the Commission relative to the proposed garages and alley improvements. City Engineer Nolan advised that the Public Works Department had received a petition for improvement of the alley in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of 1911 and the petition contained a sufficient number of signatures to insure the . success of the project. He also advised that if the encroaching structure previously discussed was within the alley right -of -way, it.could be removedl by the City. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the All Ayes following findings: 1. That the proposed residential development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed development will also eliminate an unsightly, abandoned automobile service station on the site. 2. That the proposed development meets or exceeds all of the required Residential Development Standards (i.e. floor area limit, open space option, building height, parking, etc.). 3. That the establishment of a 5 foot rear yard setback along the rear property line of the . three parcels will not, under the circumstance of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri- mental or injurious to property and improve- Page 14. COMMISSIONERS P y A= x m C • r p 3 N ROLL CALL 2 C, J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Auauc+ 1Q_ 1Q7S -�--- - - - INDEX ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the pro - posed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1801 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons resid- ing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1801, subject to the following conditions: 1.. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted in Condition No. 2. 2. That all dwelling units shall have a minimum 600 sq. ft. of living space as required by Title 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. That all applicable conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 530 be met. Item N7 Request to create three parcels of land for RESUB- residential development where four lots now exist. DIVISION NO. 530 Location: Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 3 of the Balboa Tract, located at 412, APPROVED 414 and 416 East Balboa Boulevard, CONDI- on the northwesterly corner of East TIONALLY Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street on the Balboa Peninsula. Zone: C -1 .Applicant: Properties West, Inc., Newport Beach Owner: Atlantic Richfield Corp., Los Angeles Engineer: Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Costa Mesa Page 15. COMMISSIONERS yc ➢ 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r ? ; • ; N A r MINUTES Qeu uu Auaust 19. 1976 Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Dana Smith appeared before the Commission on behal of the applicant and concurred with the staff report and recommendations. Paul Morgan, 421 Harding, owner of the property directly across the alley, appeared before the Commission and voiced concern with removal of his structure and questioned whether other struc- tures encroaching into the alley would have to be removed. He was advised by staff that any structure within the alley right -of -way would have, to be removed at such time as the alley was improved. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hummel commented on the present condition of the alley and felt that anything the applicant did would be an improvement. Motion X Following discussion, motion was made that Plan - All Ayes ning Commission make the following findings: 1.. That the proposed map is consistent with appli- cable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the pro- posed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.. . 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with Page 16. COMMISSIONERS ➢o ➢ ;�,q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7 O 4 ; f� • A L MINUTES N onu rsu August 19. 1976 - INDEX any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. 9. That the requested exception for lot widths, depths and areas is necessitated by the fact that existing requirements were adopted subsequent to the original subdivision of the area, and that almost all of the building site in the area do not conform to current standard!. 10. That if the exception were denied, the peti- tioner would be deprived of a substantial . property right enjoyed by others in the area. 11. That.the granting of this exception is compati le with the objectives of the regulations govern-1 ing light, air and the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare. and approve Resubdivision.No. 530, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a 5 foot radius corner cutoff at Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach for public street purpos s. 4. That all vehicular access rights to Balboa Boulevard be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. 5. That the driveway approaches from Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street be closed up. . 6. That the curb and gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along the Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street frontages. Page 17. COMMISSIONERS A m W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M 4s ; Mr • ; MINUTES N Qn11 rut Aunucf 10 1079 INDEX Motion X There being no further business, motion was made All Ayes to adjourn the meeting. Time: 10:35 P.M. WILLIAM AGEE, S cretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 18.