The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/21/1978COMMISSIONERS s n F ROLL CALL Present X X x x Absent x Motion es A s tai n Absent r1 L Motion ant x xx MINUTES City of Newport Beach Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. nate_ September 21. 1978 EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning David Dmohowski, Advance Planning Administrator Beverly Wood, Environmental Coordinator Bill Dye, Civil Engineer Joanne Bader, Secretary Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 7, 197 X were approved as written. INDEX Item #1 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. (AMENDMENT 20 from the R -2 -B District to the R -1 -B District. FAO. 517 Location: A portion of Lot 44, Tract No. APPROVED. 1237, located at 465 A & B Morning Canyon Road on property between Morning Canyon Road and De Anza Drive in Corona Highlands. Zone: R -2 -B Applicant: Howard E. Meek, Corona del Mar Owner: Joe Gustavino, Corona del Mar Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. IXI Motion was made that Planning Commission X X X X recommend to the City Council that Amendment No. X 517 be adopted. -1- COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach MINUTES -2- s 1978 September 21, INDEX ROIL CALL Item #2 Request to adjust common interior property lines RESUBDI- between four existing lots for office development V"i§MJFNO. in Koll Center Newport. Location: Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Tract No. APPROVED 9626, located at 4901 Birch CONDI- Street, on the northerly corner of TTOWLY Birch Street and Teller Avenue in Koll Center Newport. Zone: P -C Applicant: The Koll Company, Newport Beach Owner: Aetna Life Insurance Co., Hartford, Connecticut Engineer: Williamsen and Schmid, Irvine Public hearing was opened in connection with • this item and Dick Schmid, Engineer, appeared before the Planning Commission and advised. that this resubdivision is requested to adjust property lines so as to correct an engineering error. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make Ayes X X X X X X the following findings: Absent X 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 resubdivision presents no problems from a planning.standpoint. 3. That the proposed resubdivision.will satisfy the Uniform Building Code in conjunction with the required separation between • buildings. -2- COMMISSIONERS 9p- ®y( Bm� Opp p� `V 3 ROIL CALL 0 MINUTES City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 rchitectural character of the proposed :e buildings on the four subject !ls will remain compatible with the A ng and proposed office complexes n Koll Center Newport. ie Resubdivision No. 604, subject to ring conditions: a Parcel Map be filed. all conditions of approval for the map antative Tract No. 9626 be fulfilled. > establish one parcel of land where id a portion of a second lot now exists )ermit the conversion of an existing to a two -unit residential condominium Lot 14 and a portion of Lot 15, Block 18, East Addition to the Balboa Tract, located at 1129 and 1131 East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard between C Street and D Street on the Balboa Peninsula. R -3 Charles P. Pigneri, Balboa Paul L. Balalis, Balboa Same as Applicants GNA, Incorporated, Newport.Beach ner Balalis refrained from deliberation tem due to a conflict of interest. aring was opened in connection with this Charles P. Pigneri, Applicant, appeared e Planning Commission and commented that cants have lived in the subject resi- omplex prior to its reconstruction, and -3- INDEX Item #3 APPROVED TYURELY 4. The i offi( parcf exi sl with- and appro� the folloi 1. That 2. That of Ti Request t one lot a so as to duplex in complex. Location: Zone: Applicant Owner: Engineer: Commissio on this i Public he item and before th the appli dential c rchitectural character of the proposed :e buildings on the four subject !ls will remain compatible with the A ng and proposed office complexes n Koll Center Newport. ie Resubdivision No. 604, subject to ring conditions: a Parcel Map be filed. all conditions of approval for the map antative Tract No. 9626 be fulfilled. > establish one parcel of land where id a portion of a second lot now exists )ermit the conversion of an existing to a two -unit residential condominium Lot 14 and a portion of Lot 15, Block 18, East Addition to the Balboa Tract, located at 1129 and 1131 East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard between C Street and D Street on the Balboa Peninsula. R -3 Charles P. Pigneri, Balboa Paul L. Balalis, Balboa Same as Applicants GNA, Incorporated, Newport.Beach ner Balalis refrained from deliberation tem due to a conflict of interest. aring was opened in connection with this Charles P. Pigneri, Applicant, appeared e Planning Commission and commented that cants have lived in the subject resi- omplex prior to its reconstruction, and -3- INDEX Item #3 APPROVED TYURELY COMMISSIONERS ROIL CALL Motion Ayes X Noes Abstain Absent I:i MINUTES City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 added that they intend on making it their residence after the condominium conversion. X Motion was made that Planning Commission make the X X following findings: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title X 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 resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. and approve Resubdivision No. 605, 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 the curb, sidewalk, and driveway approaches be reconstructed along the East Balboa Boulevard frontage. 4. That a standard subdivision agreement and surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the parcel map before the public improvements are completed. 5. That the work in the public right -of -way be done under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. That there shall be submitted a declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, setting forth an enforceable method of insuring the continued maintenance of the existing landscaping, fencing, residential structure and utility facilities as well as a requirement for any enforceable method of rehabilitation or replacement of the structure on the site. In addition, the CC &R's shall also include, for prospective owners, disclosures regarding sound trans- mission between units and the absence of -4- • INDEX 0 is COMMISSIONERS • ROLL CALL 1J MINUTES City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 INDEX sound attenuation materials or construction if such do not exist. The CC &R's shall also include a disclosure of any common sewer line or other common utilities found to service the condominium and the maintenance responsibilities of said utilities. Furthermore, the City shall not be held responsible for any future problems with the subject utilities in conjunction with the proposed conversion. 7. That a licensed electrical, plumbing and mechanical contractor shall review existing systems and certify their condition to the Building Official prior to conversion. 8. That all existing fire protection equipment, such as but not limited to, wet stand pipes, fire extinguishers, fire sprinkler systems, etc., shall be inspected prior to conversion. That existing geological and soil conditions shall be reviewed. Where evidence of questionable geological or soil conditions are found to exist, the Building Official shall have the authority to require new soils' investigations. 10. That all dwelling units shall be required to meet the minimum state standards for sound separation between dwelling units. 11. That all dwellings shall be provided with smoke detectors. 12. That consideration shall be given to providing each dwelling unit with a.separate electrical service. 13. That two accessible garage spaces shall be provided for.both of the two dwelling units at all times. Commissioner Beek requested that the record show that he opposed the motion because he feels that . policies regarding condominium conversions should be established prior to taking action on conversion applications. -5- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL IMotion Ayes Absent September 21, 1978 • INDEX Item #4 Request to remodel and expand an existing non- USE PERMIT conforming single family dwelling and antique shop NO 78 in the M -1 District. CONTINUED Location: A portion of Lot 3, Block 239, TT_ Lancaster's Addition, located at UUTOBER 19, 505 29th Street, on the northerly 'T97T_ side of 29th Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. Zone: M -1 Applicant: Rick Lawrence, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant JX Planning Commission continued this item to the X X X X X meeting of October 19, 1978. XI I I I l.J Item #5 irarTic ativay: Urn ce Duiiaing ueveiopmenti - TRAFFIC' Campus Drive STUDY - Ff FIB Request to consider a Traffic Study for two 20,000 =NG square feet +, two - story, garden type, general M L€ OPMENT office buildings on the subject property (Public ON CAMPUS Hearing). DRIVE Location: Lots 18, 19, 43, and 44, Tract No. APPROV 3201, located at 4060 and 4100 UUNDI- Campus Drive and 4063 and 4101 TNAZ Birch Street, southeasterly of Campus Drive and southwesterly of . Dove Street, across from the Orange County Airport. Zone: M-1 -A Applicant: Signal Development Corporation, Irvine • Owner:. The Irvine Company, Newport Beach -6- COMMISSIONERS � o`ay v� °ap tic 9`c City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 OLL CALL Community Development Director Hogan explained that staff furnished the Planning Commission wit some supplemental information relative to this particular development. Contained in this supplemental information are data pertinent to traffic generation, staff's method of calculatir the I.C.U.s for the development, and additional information relating to the daily fluctuation of traffic at one intersection as a sample for the Planning Commission's information. Planning Commission advised that four questions were raised at this afternoon's Study Session relating to the interpretation of the.Traffic Phasing Ordinance, to wit: 1. How many digits should be carried in computing the I.C.U.s? 2. Should intersections that pass the 1% test • have the I.C.U. test applied? 3. Should mitigation.measures which are not related to this project be taken into consideration? 4. Should intersections outside the City limits of Newport Beach be taken into consideration? Planning Commission further advised that the Commissioners reached a consensus pertinent to questions 1 and 2. With respect to how many digits should be carried in computing the I.C.0 it was the opinion of the Planning Commission t four digits should be carried. With respect to whether intersections that pass the 1% test should have the I.C.U. test applied, it was the opinion of the Planning Commission that they should not. The intersections. would have to fa both tests to be significant. Planning Commission invited comments from the audience relative to the interpretation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Roland Wedermeyer appeared before the Planning Commission on beha of Signal Development Corporation. Mr. Weder- meyer explained that although he cannot address himself to the interpretation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, he concurs with the staff report and recommendation contained therein. -7- MINUTES .s, hat ii if INDEX COMMISSIONERS b` ti ty City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 ROLL CALL Mr. Wedermeyer further explained that they presently have four lots which could be develope with four 10,000 sq. ft. buildings and, consequently, not be subjected to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. However, they would prefer to build two 20,000'sq. ft. buildings for aesthetic reasons. John Butler appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Central Newport Beac Homeowners Association and voiced his opinion that it is the City's responsibility to consider adverse effects which may occur on intersections outside the City limits as a result of activitie within Newport Beach. Barry Allen, 1021 White Sails Way, Corona del. Ma appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced concern that if the City permits develop- ment in view of planned improvements which will allegedly alleviate problems, it cannot be known whether the problems will in fact be alleviated until those improvements are actually constructe Motion X Motion was made that intersections outside the City limits are covered by the phrase "any, intersection" in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and should be included in the analysis. Commissioner Beek made the following statement f the record: "The traffic analysis says that during the peak period, this project will cause an additional 49 cars to go. through the signal at the intersection of MacArthur and the San Diego Freeway off -ramp. This is one of the most congested intersections in this area, but we are denied the information as to just how bad it is, by this parochial policy of pretending that what is just a block outside our city limits isn't there. "Our citizens, and their customers, are forced to battle their way through that intersection. The alternate routes are equally congested. The purpose of the ordinance is to keep us from -8- MINUTES r, d. or • INDEX 0 COMMISSIONERS • ROLL CALL City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 contributing to making problems like this one even worse. The ordinance limits its application to those intersections where the effect of the project is over one per- cent. This is a natural and reasonable radius. The City boundary is an unnatural and unreasonable place to draw the line. Traffic problems do not respect city boundaries. "If half the routes to and from a project are to be exempted because they are the other side of that arbitrary line, then we are holding projects in the heart of Newport Beach to a stricter standard than those on the boundary. I urge the Commission not to apply a.double standard." X Commissioner Beek's motion was voted on and % X X X failed. MINUTES X Motion was made that Planning Commission will X X X X X consider only intersections within the city limits X of Newport Beach with regard to the Traffic X Phasing Ordinance. Motion was made that mitigation measures from X X X other projects, which have been approved but are X yet to be built, should be considered in the application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Commissioner Beek requested that the record show that he opposed the motion because he does not wish to approve projects until the removal of unsatisfactory conditions has actually occurred, rather than merely been predicted. Public hearing was opened in connection with the Traffic Study in question and.there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. 10 INDEX COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL Motion Ayes K Noes Absent MINUTES City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 0 INDEX Motion was made that Planning Commission make the following finding: 1. The proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major ", "primary - modified" or "primary" street. and accept the Traffic Report, subject to the following condition: 1. That occupancy of the buildings will not occur until improvements have been implemented. Item #6 A proposed amendment to the Planned Community AMENDMENT Districts to revise the allowable development to NO-.514 be consistent with the capacity of the circulation system for the following P -C District areas: CONY. 1. Big Canyon Area 10 T97F- 2. Civic Plaza 3. Corporate Plaza 4. North Ford 5. Emkay /Newport Place 6. Koll Center Newport 7. Aeronutronic -Ford 8. Westbay Site 9. Newporter North Site 10. Castaways Site 11. Newport Center Block 800 12. Coast Highway and Jamboree Site 13. Fifth Avenue Site 14. Newport Village Site Initiated by: City of Newport Beach Community Development Director Hogan suggested that the Planning Commission deal this evening with Items 2 through 7, being the commercial development for which planned community districts -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \Too\ City of Newport Beach 0 September 21, 1978 1 ROLL CALL INDEX have already been adopted and which, with the exception of Civic Plaza, have been excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He further advised that because Item 1, i.e., Big Canyon Area 10, is a residential site, it will be considered with the General Plan Amendment on tonight's agenda and that Items 8 through 14 can be considered at future public hearings since no plans have yet been approved by the City with respect to these items. Mr. Hogan advised that staff is suggesting two possible alternative approaches to the P -C amendments; that is, a reduction in total develop- ment of these projects and /or the initiation of a possible method of phasing the development of the projects consistent with traffic improvements. Public hearing was opened in connection with Items 2 through 7 and David Neish, of Urban Assist, Inc., appeared before the Planning Commission and requested clarification as to the approach the staff is recommending in the staff report. • Mr. Neish requested that this item be continued so as to give the property owners the opportunity to meet with staff and /or the Planning Commission in order to discuss what approach may be appropriat for each individual site. David Calgan appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Campeau Corporation and questioned whether the Planning Commission intends to continue this item. Following the Planning Commission's answer that it did intend to continue this item, Mr. Calgan advised that he will reserve his comments until such time as action is anticipated. Louise Greely appeared before the Planning .. Commission on behalf of the Newport Crest Home- owners Association and suggested that the Planning Commission postpone a decision on this matter until the Traffic Model is available, and further, that building permits not be issued in the interim. Barry Allen, 1021 White Sails Way, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced concern that if the Planning Commission reduces the allowable density on the P -C's, they still would not be subjected to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. - 11 - COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL MINUTES City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 0 INDEX Gene Atherton, 269 Cypress Street, Laguna Beach appeared before the Planning Commission and addressed the legal aspects of downzoning. David Neish, of Urban Assist, Inc., appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company. For General Plan Review and Planned Community Amendment purposes, Mr. Neish requested that The Irvine Company's future land use projects be placed in four categories, as follows: 1) Land use projects that are years away from the initial planning stage; 2) those residential projects The Irvine Company is prepared to commit to reductions in density this evening; 3) Newport Center (also included in this category would be Bayview Landing, Castaways Commercial area, Roger's Gardens residential parcel, Newport Village, and the land parcel at the northeast corner of the Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road intersection); and 4) those parcels which The Irvine Company views as being vested in terms of any application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, i.e., land use entitlements have been secured and construction has taken place on the sites. Mr. Neish suggested that those sites contained in Category 1 be considered during a future General Plan Amendment process and, meanwhile, left as is on the current General Plan; that those sites contained in Category 2 be acted on this evening; and that thos sites contained in Categories 3 and 4 be considere at the next Planning Commission hearing on this matter. Mr. Neish then summarized Peter Kremer's declaration before the Newport Harbor - Costa Mesa Board of Realtors in which he advised of The Irvine Company's support of a development fee district concept that would provide major contributions toward road improvements. Mr. Neish stressed that this proposal was made by Mr. Kremer with the provision that the developer must receive reasonable assurance of the land uses and densitie which will be permitted. Mr. Neish advised that The Irvine Company is prepared to commit many of the P -C's to reductions in density this evening as follows: -12- r� u tL� COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach • CALL • I Absent I XI X IX PA September 21, 1978 Area Westbay Newporter North Baywood Freeway Reser- vation East Castaways Resi- dential Newport Center Block 800 Eastbluff Remnant Big Canyon P -C Density Presently Permitted by General Plan 426 DU's 704 DU's 150 DU's 320 DU's 315 DU's 84 DU's 338 DU's The Irvine Company's Proposals for Reductions 348 DU's 440 DU's 140 DU's Max. of 100 DU's 225 DU's 245 DU's 42 DU's 260 DU's Mr. Neish expressed that Newport Beach's road system will experience no impact whatsoever from any of these developments until at least August of 1980 when initial occupancy of any home or apartment could be expected; full traffic impact from the last of the fully- occupied developments won't be experienced until December of 1983. Mr. Neish advised that this would allow sufficient time to provide whatever road improvements are needed. David Shores, 12 Tribute Court, Newport Beach appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that when The Irvine Company is fully pre- pared to pay for all improvements, they should be allowed to proceed with their projects. Motion was made that Planning Commission continue JXX the public hearing regarding Amendment No. 514 to X the meeting of October 5, 1978. Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. -13- INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach MINUTES 3. Development of a phasing plan to coordinate new development with planned improvements in the circulation system. 4. Revision of the existing density classifi- cation system to use numerical density categories. 5. Assessment of possible reductions in allowa- ble development in terms of fiscal impacts and environmental considerations. 0 -14- `y September 21, 1978 • INDEX Item #7 ROIL CALL A proposed amendment to the. Land Use, Residential GENERAL Growth, Circulation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements to include the following: AAMUDMENT 1. Possible reduction in allowable intensity of CONT. TO development on the major commercial /industrial MT. sites, including, but not 9T 78 limited to, the following: (a) Newport Center (b) Koll Center Newport (c) Emkay Newport Place (d). Castaways Commercial Site (e) Bayview Landing Site (f) Aeronutronic -Ford Industrial Site (9) San Diego Creek Site 2. Possible reduction in the number of dwelling units allowable on the major residential undeveloped sites, including, but not limited to, the following: . Aeronutronic -Ford Residential Site �a) b) Westbay Site (c Newporter North (d) Freeway Reservations near MacArthur Boulevard (e) Fifth Avenue (f) Caltrans Parcels West Newport (g Beeco Property (h) vacant residential parcel to the south o Roger's Gardens (i) Castaways Residential Site 3. Development of a phasing plan to coordinate new development with planned improvements in the circulation system. 4. Revision of the existing density classifi- cation system to use numerical density categories. 5. Assessment of possible reductions in allowa- ble development in terms of fiscal impacts and environmental considerations. 0 -14- COMMISSIONERS U IROLL CALL Motion Ayes Absent 0 MINUTES City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and David Shores, 12 Tribute Court, Newport Beach appeared before the Planning Commission and requested that Alternative A in the staff report for Caltrans West be changed to read. "Reduction to 5 OU's per Buildable Acre" rather than. "5 DU's per Acre." X Motion was made that Planning Commission continue X X the public hearing on General Plan Amendment X 78 -2 to the meeting of October 5, 1978. Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code adopting regu- lations for blufftop developments in the Planned Community Districts. Initiated by: City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Gene Atherton, 269 Cypress, Laguna Beach appeared before the Planning Commission and compared the City's proposed ordinance to the Bluff Initiative. Dr. Atherton felt that his Bluff Initiative is superior because it provides greater setback, easier access, and reduces erosion resulting from the watering of lawns. Keith Greer appeared before the Planning Commissio on behalf of The Irvine Company and commented that the ordinance being considered this evening will protect the coastal bluffs, will provide access to the bluffs, and will reduce hazards to the bluffs associated with development. Mr. Greer also commented that adoption of this ordinance would provide the voters of the City with an alternative to consider relative to the protection of the coastal bluffs. In view of the foregoing, Mr. Greer urged adoption of the ordinance in question. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. -15- INDEX AMENDMENT N5 5— APPROVED COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \� \ \�� \per \ \\ City of Newport Beach �\ \\%\ \\ September 21, 1978 . ROIL CALL 1111 111 INDEX Public hearing was reopened in connection with this item and Keith Greer reappeared.before the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company and advised that The Irvine Company is planning public trail systems along the top of the bluffs in the Westbay, Newporter North, and Castaways sites. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion K Motion was made that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Amendment No. 515 be adopted. Commissioner Beek stated that he was one of the signers of the argument that will appear in the Voter's Pamphlet urging people to vote "yes" on.the Atherton Initiative. Because the proposed ordinance is an attempt to forestall the Atherton Bluff Initiative, Commissioner Beek . felt that it would be improper for him to vote on this ordinance. Therefore, Commissioner Beek announced that he would abstain from voting on this matter. Ayes K X X Commissioner Haidinger's motion was voted on and Noes X X carried. Abstain X Absent X Item #9 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 AMENDMENT (Zoning) of the Municipal Code adopting regula- No. 516 tions for blufftop developments in all residential zone districts, except the Planned Community RECOMMEND Districts, for new construction and additions TOR DENIAL to existing structures. Initiated by: City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Tim Wilkes appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Don Haskell, property owner on Cliff Drive, and questioned whether adoption of this ordinance would preclude development of the thirteen vacant lots involved. -16- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 MINUTES INDEX Item #11 Les Miller, 128 Kings Place, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced his opinion. that this ordinance is not needed inasmuch as the City already has standards with respect to setbacks and height limitations. Gene Atherton appeared before the Planning Commission and made reference to a 10 -foot setback contained in other development regulations. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission recommend Ayes X X X X X to the City Council that Amendment No. 51.6 not Noes be adopted. Absent X Proposed amendment to Section 20.01.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Zoning) to make all • new construction and all additions to existing structures, except single - family dwellings and duplexes, subject to Site Plan Review in areas designated for the preparation of a Specific Area Plan where such plan has not been adopted. Initiated by: City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and there being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission recommend Ayes X X K to the City Council that Amendment No. 518 be Noes X X X adopted, which motion failed. Absent X Proposal to amend Chapter 15.35 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to Reports of Residential Building Records. Initiated by: City of Newport Beach -17- INDEX Item #11 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL September 21, 1978 Community Development Director Hogan explained . that staff has not yet reviewed this proposed amendment with the Board of Realtors, and therefore, suggested that the Planning Commission consider continuing this item to give the Board of Realtors an opportunity to review the proposal Discussion was opened to the public and John Butler appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Central Newport Beach Community Association and suggested that the wording of the amendment be expanded so as to provide that inspections may be requested by either the property owner or prospective purchaser. Staff pointed out that an inspector cannot go onto a property owner's land without his permission. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the discussion was closed to the public. IM�ootion X Motion was made that Planning Commission continue Absent X X X X X X X this matter to the meeting of October 5, 1978. Request to set public hearing for the October, 1978 General Plan Amendment session. • INDEX E Item #12 GENERAL PP— AM NDMENT 78-3 Motion X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1017 SET FOR Ayes X X X X X X setting General Plan Amendment 78 -3 for public PUBEM Absent X hearing at the Planning Commission meeting of FI€ARING ON October 19, 1978. OCT 9 A D D I T I O N A L ROGER'S GARDENS B U S I N E S S Following indication by Don Adkinson and Phil Arst that an October 19, 1978 hearing date would be acceptable with both parties, Planning ffm ADDITIONAL BU SNESS ROGER'S GARDENS • City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 Commission set a public hearing for October 19, X X 1978 to consider staff's interpretation of Roger's Gardens' current use permit as well as the proposed amendment to the use permit which was removed from the Commission's calendar in March, 1978. Further, staff was directed to delay implementing any action with respect to any alleged violations pending the outcome of the public hearings. There being no further business, Planning Commission adjourned at 11:20 p.m.. a "LA- GEO OKAS, Secretary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission -19- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS p�eSy.9 S ROLL CALL Motion X Ayes x x x X Absent • City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 Commission set a public hearing for October 19, X X 1978 to consider staff's interpretation of Roger's Gardens' current use permit as well as the proposed amendment to the use permit which was removed from the Commission's calendar in March, 1978. Further, staff was directed to delay implementing any action with respect to any alleged violations pending the outcome of the public hearings. There being no further business, Planning Commission adjourned at 11:20 p.m.. a "LA- GEO OKAS, Secretary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission -19- MINUTES INDEX