Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/19839 m W c °� spy pm �a XIX REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: September 22, 1983 Itv Of All Present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert D. Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney Robert Burnham, City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Donald Webb, City Engineer Robert P. Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator • Patricia L. Temple, Senior Planner Nancy M. Alvidrez, Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of August 4, 1983 Motion X Motion was made for the approval of the August 4, 1983 Ayes x x x x X X Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, as written, which Abstain X MOTION CARRIED. F.iil Jim Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Department has received a request from The Irvine Company on Item No. 19 - Lot Line Adjustment No. 83 -3, in the Bluffs, that this item be continued to October 20, 1983. In addition, the Planning Department has indicated, in the staff report, that Items No. 22 and 23 - Use Permit No. 3056 and Variance No. 1105 have been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. Motion was made to continue Lot Line Ad ustment W on j Ayes 1XIX IXIXIXI ' No. 83 -3 to the Planning Commission Meeting of October 20, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES INDEX MINUTES September 22, 1983 � x � r 3 m m City of Newport Beach ■ ROIl CALL I III III I I INDEX Acceptance of an environmental document for General Stem #: Plan Amendment No. 82 -1, Amendment No. 3 of the Local DRAFT'] Coastal Program, Amendment No. 592 and Amendment No. 593; AND AND Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, Item # #: Recreation and Open Space, Circulation and Noise GPA 82• Elements of Newport Beach General Plan for the North Ford Planned Community; AND I AND Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for that portion of the North Ford Planned Community located within the Coastal Zone (San Diego Creek South); AND I AND Request to amend the North Ford Planned Community so as to include all of the land northerly of Eastbluff Drive (Extended) to San Diego Creek, between the City boundary and Jamboree Road; and all of the land southerly of Eastbluff Drive (Extended) to Bison Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and the easterly boundary of the North Ford Planned Community. The proposal also includes a request to amend portions of Districting Maps No. 43, 44 and 58, so as to reclassify said property from the Unclassified District to the Planned Community District; AND ( AND Request to consider an amendment to the Koll Center Item #5 � - Newport Planned Community Development Plan so as to AMENDMENT allow 295,000 sq.ft. of additional office development N0: 593 in Office Site "C" of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community; MR Request to consider a Traffic Study for the proposed changes to the residential land use designations for the North Ford Planned Community; AND 2 AND STUDY Wpp fY \IY YJ.TV��L�V ' September 22, 1983 � r m. City of Newport Beach Request to consider a Traffic Study to allow 295,000 sq.ft. of additional office development in Office Site "C" of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community; AND MINUTES INDEX Item #7 TRAFFIC STUDY OrkR Request to consider an amendment to the Koll Center Item #8 Newport Traffic Phasing Plan so as to allow 295,000 AMENDMENT sq.ft. of additional office development in Office Site NO. 2 to "C" of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community; IKOLL CENT: AND Request to consider an amendment to the North Ford Traffic Phasing Plan so as to allow the development proposed in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 82 -1. LOCATION: The area bounded by the San Diego Creek on the north, the City boundary on the • east, Bison Avenue and Camelback Street on the south and Jamboree Road on the west; and The area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Von Karman Avenue, and Campus Drive in Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The area bounded by Camelback Street, Bison Avenue, Eastbluff Drive (Extended), the easterly City boundary, San Diego Creek and Jamboree Road. GENERAL PLAN: Medium Density Residential; Retail and Service Commercial; Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; General Industry; and Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities. ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District and Unclassified PROPONENT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach . Jim Hewicker stated that it is the intent of the Planning Commission to hear Items No. I through 9 concurrently due to their relationship to General Plan 3 AND PHASING wvveam�.�w September 22, 1983 �r v m W a m m City of Newport Beach MINUTES ■ R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I INDEX Amendment 82 -1 as initiated by the City of Newport Beach in the North Ford area. In addition to the General Plan Amendment it also includes the acceptance of a Draft Environmental impact Report, an amendment to the Local Coastal Program, amendments to two Planned Community documents, a Traffic Study, an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Traffic Study, and amendments to the North Ford Traffic Phasing Plan. Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, stated that this General Plan Amendment has been under consideration by the City for well over a year. It was originally initiated in May, 1982 by the City Council, and in September 1982, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a project somewhat different than this particular item. In October 1982, the City Council referred this item back to the Planning Commission for further study and hearings, and in March 1983, the project was expanded to include not only the North Ford project but the San Diego Creek South Site • as well. Mr. Lenard further stated that Planning Department staff was directed to prepare an EIR on the combined project, which has been prepared, circulated, and distributed to the Planning Commission. Following is an explanation of what the project entails and a brief comparison to what is allowed by the General Plan: Existing General Plan Site A - San Diego Creek South Site, bounded by San Diego Creek on the north, Jamboree Road on the west, MacArthur Boulevard on the east, and the future alignment of Eastbluff Drive on the south is shown on the General Plan as a desilting facility designated as Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities With an alternate use of Industrial with 204,732 square feet of industrial allowed. North Ford Site - The area adjacent to the corner of Jamboree Road,and Bison Avenue is currently developed but the undeveloped portions of the site include an industrial.area where 295,000 square feet of industrial are allowed, a commercial site with 28,500 square feet of commercial on approximately 10 acres and a 35 acre • residential site which allows 120 dwelling units at just over 4 dwelling units an acre. This particular development is subject to a Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Judgement entered into as a result of a 4 MINUTES INDEX lawsuit and is allowed without any further discretionary views on the part of the City. It is essentially exempted from any further traffic phasing ordinance approvals, or any other roadway action by the City. Mr. Lenard further stated that developing a comprehensive plan for this area requires a program that is acceptable both to the City and to the property owner, The Irvine Company, in order to get their agreement in amending that stipulated judgement. Proposed General Plan Mr. Lenard stated that the San Diego Creek South Site at the northernly end of the area has been reduced in size from its original 47 acres to 22 acres. This is as a result of the realignment of University Drive South to meet at the intersection of Eastbluff Drive and Jamboree Road. Part of the General Plan Amendment on the agenda this evening is an amendment to the Circulation Element changing this roadway alignment on • the Master Plan of Highways. At one point in time, it was contemplated-that Eastbluff Drive could connect to MacArthur Avenue at Bonita Canyon Road, but with the alignment of the future Corona del Mar Freeway that connection is no longer possible. Staff is recommending that the roadway alignment be changed to coincide with future alignment of University Drive South, that being the boundary of the 22 acre office site where 345,000 square feet of office space is proposed. Below the office site is a 12 acre park site. The area previously shown for a Industrial and Residential uses is a 79 acre parcel where 888 residential units would be constructed. At the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue is a 5 acre shopping center site where 50,000 square feet of development would be allowed. Consistent with the City's Housing Element Goals and Objectives, staff has been working with The Irvine Company over the past 14 or 15 months trying to come up with a program to provide affordable housing in this area with adequate incentives for the developer and adequate affordable housing to meet the City's Housing Element. The proposal shows 888 units on the North Ford site, 222 of which are affordable units. Of these 222 units 20% would be affordable to County low income families and 80% would be affordable to County median income . families. A County median income family, in current dollars, earns approximately $34,700 per year. This project would include rental housing so that the monthly expense category approximately for a two 5 September 22, 1983 v m m m� w. City of Newport Beach INDEX lawsuit and is allowed without any further discretionary views on the part of the City. It is essentially exempted from any further traffic phasing ordinance approvals, or any other roadway action by the City. Mr. Lenard further stated that developing a comprehensive plan for this area requires a program that is acceptable both to the City and to the property owner, The Irvine Company, in order to get their agreement in amending that stipulated judgement. Proposed General Plan Mr. Lenard stated that the San Diego Creek South Site at the northernly end of the area has been reduced in size from its original 47 acres to 22 acres. This is as a result of the realignment of University Drive South to meet at the intersection of Eastbluff Drive and Jamboree Road. Part of the General Plan Amendment on the agenda this evening is an amendment to the Circulation Element changing this roadway alignment on • the Master Plan of Highways. At one point in time, it was contemplated-that Eastbluff Drive could connect to MacArthur Avenue at Bonita Canyon Road, but with the alignment of the future Corona del Mar Freeway that connection is no longer possible. Staff is recommending that the roadway alignment be changed to coincide with future alignment of University Drive South, that being the boundary of the 22 acre office site where 345,000 square feet of office space is proposed. Below the office site is a 12 acre park site. The area previously shown for a Industrial and Residential uses is a 79 acre parcel where 888 residential units would be constructed. At the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue is a 5 acre shopping center site where 50,000 square feet of development would be allowed. Consistent with the City's Housing Element Goals and Objectives, staff has been working with The Irvine Company over the past 14 or 15 months trying to come up with a program to provide affordable housing in this area with adequate incentives for the developer and adequate affordable housing to meet the City's Housing Element. The proposal shows 888 units on the North Ford site, 222 of which are affordable units. Of these 222 units 20% would be affordable to County low income families and 80% would be affordable to County median income . families. A County median income family, in current dollars, earns approximately $34,700 per year. This project would include rental housing so that the monthly expense category approximately for a two 5 MINUTES September 22, 1983 3 � m m m ° City of Newport Beach m j D ■ R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1INDEX bedroom unit with a family of four occupying it would be $850 per month, and this rental structure would be guaranteed for a period of ten years. It would be allowed to increase with increases in the County median income. A low income family, by County standards, earns $26,960 which would allow monthly housing expense of $675 per month, and this would apply to 20% of the 222 units. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Richard M. Aston, Assistant Director of the Orange County Community Housing Corporation, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Aston stated that his testimony regarding General Plan Amendment 82 -1 is as pertinent to General Plan Amendment 82 -2 and 83 -1 and that if it is the desire of the Planning Commission, his testimony can be included in the public comments of the other hearings by reference in an effort to conserve on the time of the • Planning Commission. Mr. Aston further stated that as background, his non - profit company has just begun construction on a 24 unit apartment in Capistrano Beach which will be affordable to very low income families. This development was unanimously approved by the Community Citizen Design Advisory Committee. The same type of construction could be constructed in Newport Beach on a non - profit basis. Mr. Aston further stated that he objects to the General Plan Amendments as an imposition on the neighboring communities, who must suffer the cost of housing other Newport Beach's employees. The General Plan Amendments also impose a transportation burden and also as adverse impact on air quality. Regarding General Plan Amendment 82 -2, this property is being considered for development of approximately 7 units per acre, instead of 'a more realistic 20 to 30 units per acre which more closely resembles the fact of an urban center attempting to meet its housing needs. This project has already seen a reduction from 610 units to 319 units in 1979, and a rejection of 50 units of offsite housing affordable to low income households. The City's consultant, Ward Connerly, has stated that in order to include affordable housing in new housing projects a density of 20 units per acre is necessary. Mr. Aston further stated that he objects to General Plan Amendment 82 -2 on the grounds that the density is far too low and that the affordable housing requirements percentage is too low, and the household M dS�. MINUTES September 22, 1983 n x 9 m "IC- C S n s m ity of V� income is too high. General Plan Amendment same reasoning. Beach INDEX With regards to objections to 82 -1 and 83 -1, they follow the Mr. Aston stated that until such time Newport Beach assumes its responsibility, in attempting to house labor which helps create its fruits, he would assert that any attempt that utilizing the land resources in Newport Beach as regressive and causing irreputable damage to fulfilling the demand for formal housing in Newport Beach. Air quality, transportation, regional housing opportunities and family live style all stand to lose at the hands of such exclusionary planning practices. Ms. Elizabeth Mead, resident at 851 Domingo, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Mead referred to an article in the Register newspaper which brought her to present a letter to the . Planning Commission stating that she believes the Planning Commission, Planning Department and City Council need to get together to better serve their constituents. Ms. Mead further stated that she firmly believes that no one is representing her income group in providing quality housing and that she is tired of looking at high density, minimal square footage, no garages, as well as being any part of lottery. Another drawback is interest rates and the Association dues that make virtually impossible to have payments under $1,000. A particular concern to Ms. Mead in reading the North Ford EIR is that Multiple - Family housing would provide a better noise mitigation than would Low Density Single - Family detached housing. It has also been communicated to Ms. Mead that the City may chose to provide this housing as all rental. 46.5 percent of the occupied housing in Newport Beach consists of renters, as of the 1980 Census. Ms. Mead further mentioned that she is sure many people would seek home ownership if it were available to them. Listed below are Ms. Mead's five (5) requests: 1. To provide better notification for Amigos Way and Domingo Drive. . 2. Initiate a public hearing when people are absolutely outraged at something reported in the newspaper that is brought on by a citizen request instead of an official public hearing. 7 MINUTES September 22, 1983 a m City of Newport Beach � j O ■ R O L L CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX 3. Continue to notify citizens when a hearing is postponed and rescheduled, particularly the individuals who originally provided their names. 4. Contact the Orange County Community Housing Corporation to have them send, in writing, the reason why no evictions have taken place at 851 Domingo since the official eviction letter, dated February 17, 1981. 5. Contact the Orange County Housing Authority and request. them to properly notify the 3,000 people that provided them with their names as interested in the Villa Balboa affordable housing in Newport Beach. Ms. Mead closed her letter by stating that this was on the front page of the L.A. Times as a result of her coming before the City Council, and as a result over 3,000 people contacted the Housing Authority. Ms. Mead • further stated that she is very much against a lottery for the reason that she has sat on a lottery, and for every 20 people that were called there was an average of 5 to 6 people who were there. Mr. Hewicker, Planning Director stated that it is important for staff to respond to Ms. Mead's comments. 1. The Planning Department has followed every procedure that the City Council and the State Planning Law sets forth in terms of notifying persons regarding the General Plan Amendment hearings. 2. One year ago when Ms. Mead appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council regarding her concerns with a notification process she took it upon herself to circulate letters among her friends and professional associates, she turned them in to the Planning Department and asked that all these people be notified whenever a public hearing regarding housing opportunities within the City. I I I i Mr. Hewicker stated that the Planning Commission I has done everything possible to notify the people whose names Ms. Mead submitted to the City whether . they were residents of the City or not. Approximately one year ago when notices were sent out to these people, phone calls were received asking why they received these particular notices. M September 22, 1983 LMi MINUTES t � r INDEX 3. In addition to doing newspaper advertising, Planning Department staff has met with various associations in the surrounding area who have showed an interest and informed them when the hearings will be coming up and what the project entails. Ms. Barbara Quist, member of the Eastbluff Homeowners Association, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Quist that the Board of Directors for Eastbluff Homeowners Association is satisfied with the new land use and the way GPA 82 -1 is now proposed. Ms. Quist asked of staff: 1. What was the impact of traffic and noise on Eastluff Drive as it is extended and Bison Street? 2. What was the mitigation of a major shopping center facility in the North Ford commercial site? . 3. The noise and conjestion of the streets surround and go through the area, Eastbluff Drive with its extension into University Drive and also the Bison area, the cutoff through the community. Ms. Quist feels that these areas should be properly addressed in the areas of noise and as far as circulation and it is a feeling that this draft should be held over until these items are properly addressed. Ms. Quist further stated that she feels a person with a $30,000 to $40,000 income can afford a VA and a FHA home, and that she hopes the North Ford project can have some homes that are affordable to these people because it is strongly needed in the area. Mr. Hewicker commented to 'Ms. Quist's questions in response to the concerns expressed by the Eastbluff Homeowners Association, with respect to the proposed neighborhood shopping.center in the North Ford Planned Community. In regards to the concerns over the traffic that would be generated by residents in one community trying to use shopping centers in another, Planning Department staff has increased the size of the particular neighborhood center from 28,500 square feet I I I I I I I I to 50,000 square feet, and the intent is that it would be a neighborhood center serving both the communities of North Ford and also the persons of Belcourt. 01 n �c r 9 m W g o September 22, 1983 LMi MINUTES t � r INDEX 3. In addition to doing newspaper advertising, Planning Department staff has met with various associations in the surrounding area who have showed an interest and informed them when the hearings will be coming up and what the project entails. Ms. Barbara Quist, member of the Eastbluff Homeowners Association, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Quist that the Board of Directors for Eastbluff Homeowners Association is satisfied with the new land use and the way GPA 82 -1 is now proposed. Ms. Quist asked of staff: 1. What was the impact of traffic and noise on Eastluff Drive as it is extended and Bison Street? 2. What was the mitigation of a major shopping center facility in the North Ford commercial site? . 3. The noise and conjestion of the streets surround and go through the area, Eastbluff Drive with its extension into University Drive and also the Bison area, the cutoff through the community. Ms. Quist feels that these areas should be properly addressed in the areas of noise and as far as circulation and it is a feeling that this draft should be held over until these items are properly addressed. Ms. Quist further stated that she feels a person with a $30,000 to $40,000 income can afford a VA and a FHA home, and that she hopes the North Ford project can have some homes that are affordable to these people because it is strongly needed in the area. Mr. Hewicker commented to 'Ms. Quist's questions in response to the concerns expressed by the Eastbluff Homeowners Association, with respect to the proposed neighborhood shopping.center in the North Ford Planned Community. In regards to the concerns over the traffic that would be generated by residents in one community trying to use shopping centers in another, Planning Department staff has increased the size of the particular neighborhood center from 28,500 square feet I I I I I I I I to 50,000 square feet, and the intent is that it would be a neighborhood center serving both the communities of North Ford and also the persons of Belcourt. 01 MINUTES September 22, 1983 � r m m City of Newport Beach j O R O L L CALl1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX With respect to the concerns relating to noise and traffic, Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that the draft Environmental Impact Report and the traffic reports address the cumulative impacts of both projects. Staff was working to mitigate noise along Jamboree Road, between Eastbluff Drive (No.) and Ford Road. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Hewicker answered that the residential .units are not leveraged with Pelican Hills Road and as a result of.the stipulated judgement they could not be in that the development that currently exists in the General Plan for North Ford. Mr. Hewicker further stated that the 200,000+ square feet of industrial, the 120 dwelling units, the 28,500 square feet of neighborhood commercial has been fixed as a result of a stipulated judgement entered into between the City of Newport Beach, The Irvine Company and the Superior Court as a result of a lawsuit that was brought against the City several years ago by The Irvine Company. In response to another question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Talarico stated that in terms of Pelican. Hills Road the first phase of the development has four parts, the four parts are all to occur between now and the year 1985. The local commercial, the first 300 residential units, and 295,000 square feet of office development in Block C of Koll Center all of which could occur based on other circulation system improvements. At that point it was found that the development began to exceed the limit in the Corona del Mar area, approximately in the year 1988 /89. When staff ran in 1989, 1990 and 1991 the traffic was such that a bypass to Corona del Mar or other improvements are needed. Mr. Talarico further stated that Pelican Hills Road is required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance in 1989, and that until that point all of this development works under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. To clarify more simply, Mr. Hewicker stated that Pelican Hills Road will be triggered by any of the following: 301st residential unit, by the first square foot above 50,000 of commercial in the neighborhood center, by the first square foot of office to be built . I I I I in the San Diego Creek South site (Site A), and it will be triggered by the first square foot above the 295,000 square feet in Koll Center in Block C. 10 MINUTES September 22, 1983 a City of Newport Beach INDEX Ms. Quist asked staff how many trips are being . generated with the growth from Bristol to Coast Highway by these proposed projects, and what is going to be done with all this traffic? In response to Ms. Quist's question, Mr. Talarico stated that he could meet with her now and the next meeting to go over the particular projects that she is indicating and also review contents of the Environmental Impact Report where all the information has been analyzed cumulatively. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Lenard stated that in working with The Irvine Company and trying to development an overall package for affordable housing the bottom line is that to provide affordable units costs it is a subsidy from the developer that is geared on the rest of the development that is allowed, and The Irvine Company has indicated to staff that given the density bonuses that are being proposed in conjunction with this project that 20% is the maximum number of units that is feasible to provide in that price range and for that period of time. Motion K Motion was made to continue Items No. 1 through 9, All Ayes X X X X X K K which MOTION CARRIED. * x x The Planning Commission recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8 :55 p.m. Request to amend the Land Use and Residential Growth Item #10 Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to GPA 83 -1 allow construction of an additional 428 dwelling units in Newport Center, including 150 affordable units in Newport Village. AND AND Request to consider the adoption of a Planned.Community Item #11 Development Plan for the Newport Village area in AMENDMENT Newport Center., NO. 594 . LOCATION: Area bounded by East Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road, and Jamboree Road, in Newport Center. 11 AlE � r U CC C 6 W m September 22, 1983 In Beach MINUTES ■ ROLL CALL I I I I 1 1 1 1 I INDEX • • PROPONENT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Barry Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Allen stated he is acting as a spokesman on behalf of the Harbor View Hills Association and that he has 5 concerns, four of which are on of the Association and the fifth is a personal one of his. 1. There has been a site line worked out between the Homeowners Association and The Irvine Company and the Association is strongly in favor of the condition that is recommended by staff on this particular project because it protects the views of the Association and The Irvine Company has approved it. 2. There is some concern with the Association because they see the number of dwelling units in question, the size of the dwelling unit, but they do not have any, idea of how the project is proposed to look. Mr. Allen asked that any public hearing notices be personally given to him and he will be the one discussing any concerns. Is the Commission giving up any rights to change, modify or amend the plans for the dwelling units there by approving the plans? 3. Are there any plans to extend Harbor View Hills Drive? 4. Mr. Allen referred to the conditions when the City Council approved the Newport Center plan, requesting that they be imposed as conditions to this item: 1) site line ordinance, 2) Crown Drive shall not be extended across MacArthur Boulevard, 3) Harbor View Hills Drive shall not be extended across MacArthur Boulevard, 4) all utilities shall be underground in conjunction with circulation system improvements, there shall be no internally illuminated signs facing MacArthur Boulevard, all commercial developments shall be .subject to use permit and all attached mitigation measures relating to this site shall apply. 12 � r m m September 22, 1983 on Beach MINUTES ■ R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 I INDEX ■ 5. Mr. Allen expressed his concern on the park dedication and stated that in this instance the Planning Commission should give strong consideration in the approval of these projects to requiring land dedication and not accepting in -lieu fees. In response to Mr. Allen's question, Mr. Hewicker, Planning Director, stated the term "floating units" refers to the ability to transfer development rights from one parcel in the City to another parcel in the City and when those units have not been specifically tied to a given location they are talking about the fact that they are designated for a certain geographical area but have not been fixed on the ground with respect to the exact location that they will go. Ms. Lucille Kuehn, 1831 Seadrift Avenue, Irvine Terrace, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Kuehn stated she is in support of affordable housing from several points of view. Ms. Kuehn further stated that she has two questions: 1) What would the actual cost be to the prospective renter? and 2) How are these units maintained for properly qualified individuals? In response to Ms. Kuehn's questions, Mr. Lenard stated that the affordability ranges are provided for low and moderate income households, specifically for medium income households which earn approximately $33,700 a year, which means that the rental units rent would have to be $850 per month or below, representing a two bedroom unit for four persons. In low income, at $26,960 a year with a maximum monthly rental of $675 per month. Commissioner Goff asked for confirmation of a number he worked out showing that if all 360 units go into Newport Village then we would have 25 dwelling units per buildable acre, based on a number for gross acre in an 80 %. Mr. Lenard stated that 25 dwelling units per buildable acre would be approximately the maximum per gross acre. In response to another question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Lenard stated that a Planned Community Development Plan and a Development Phasing Program should be initiated for this project, but if not included, staff will provide the Commission with . additional language. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, with respect to Item No. 4 in the Conditions, 13 MINUTES September 22, 1983 p m City of Newport Beach O ■ ROIl CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX Mr. Lenard stated that at one time this project included the Fifth and MacArthur site which was subsequently dropped out and is being processed using separate environmental documentation. The Baywood project has already completed all of its discretionary reviews and is under construction. In order for The Irvine Company to construct the total 278 additional market rate units it will be necessary for them to reach some kind of agreement with the City regarding maintaining the Baywood Apartment expansion as affordable units and it would assume successfully completing the General Plan Amendment process on the Fifth and MacArthur site and increasing its density providing affordable units on that site. If those two things were not to occur the bonus market rate units in Newport Center would be just 150 as a 1 for 1 match for the Newport Village site. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Hewicker stated that the 150 affordable • units and 278 market rate units will be the subject of further Planned Community Development Standards that will be coming to the Planning Commission as well as the City Council. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Lenard stated that it is his understanding that The Irvine Company will be processing underlying tentative tract maps for condominium conversion with the ultimate approval of the project and after the ten year time period was up and they have been maintained as rentals, with certain affordability requirements for the ten year period, they would then have the option to either continuing to rent them or exercise the map and offer them as condominium units. Motion I JJJ I Motion was made to continue 'Items No. 10 and 11 to the All Ayes X X X X Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. x Acceptance of an environmental document for General Plan Amendment No. 82 -2 and related applications, so as to allow the construction of a. 198 unit residential • condominium development in Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 14 C0MMI55tUNLKS MINUTES September 22, 1983 � x f w ? ° m City, of Newport Beach ROLL CAL INDEX AND I AND Request to amend . the Land Use Element of the Newport item, #13 Beach General Plan for Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford GPA 82 -2 Planned Community from "Low Density Residential" uses to "Multi - Family Residential" uses. LOCATION: Tract No. 11041, located on the southeasterly corner of Bison Avenue and Jamboree Road, commonly known as "Belcourt" Area 8, within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C PROPONENT: J. M. Peters Company, Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND AND • Request to consider a traffic study in conjunction with Item #14 the construction of a 198 unit residential condominium TRAFFIC development in Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned STUDY Community. LOCATION: Tract No. 11041, located on the southeasterly corner of Bison Avenue and Jamboree Road, commonly known as "Belcourt" Area 8, within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant AND AND Request to consider an amendment to the Aeronutronic "Item #15 Ford Traffic Phasing Plan so as to allow a 198 unit 'AMENDMENT residential condominium development in Area 8, within NO. 3 to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. AERONU- TRONIC LOCATION: Tract No. 11041, located on the FORD • southeasterly corner of Bison Avenue and PLANNED Jamboree Road, commonly known as COMMUNITY "Belcourt" Area 8, within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. 15 C0A&N%SIOIsIERS MINUTES September 22, 1983 is = 0 s � r m m m City of Nov rt Beach ROLL CALL I I I TTI INDEX ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: J..M. Peters Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant AND I AND Request to amend the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community text so as to increase the number of allowable dwelling units in Area 8 and to revise the development standards for Areas No. 1, 6, 7, and 8 of the Planned Community. LOCATION: The area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Ford Road, Jamboree Road, and Bison Avenue in the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C • APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant AND I AND Request to permit the construction of a 198 unit residential condominium development and related garage spaces on property located in Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. LOCATION: Tract No. 11041, located on the. southeasterly corner of Bison Avenue and Jamboree Road, commonly known as "Belcourt" Area 8, within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company,.Newport Beach OWNER: .Same as Applicant AND AND • Request to establish a single lot subdivision for residential condominium purposes where 34 lots now exist in conjunction with the construction of a 198 unit residential condominium development. 16 r o : n X 6f 01 September 22, 1983 zi Beach MINUTES 1 ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX ■ LOCATION: Tract No. 11041, located on the southeasterly corner of Bison Avenue and Jamboree Road, commonly known as "Belcourt" Area 8, within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Van Dell and Associates, Inc., Irvine The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Bob Trapp with the J.M. Peters Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Trapp introduced Mr. Jim Koone, Architect, representing RNM Architects. Mr. Koone presented the • overall land plan, the architecture, and showed a slide presentation. Mr. Trapp stated that the point of the slide presentation was to show the 5 foot setback issue from property -line for second story conditions. Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, referred to page 15 in the staff report, suggesting two changes in wording in Conditions No. 17 and 18. Condition No. 17 wording to be, " A minimum of 25% of the units developed in Area 8 above 38 units, which are presently permitted, shall be moderately priced for sale units as defined by the City's Housing Element. Additionally, staff requested that Condition No. 8 be deleted and in conjunction with the change suggested to Condition No. 17 that Condition No. 18, that "... or off - site" shall be taken out, and that Condition No. 19, where it say ".. rental or" also be taken out. Chairman King suggested the deletion of Condition No. 14 which Mr. Talarico concurred. Mr. Trapp stated that he concurs with the recommendations of staff, but that he would like to discuss issues on pages 9 and 10 of the staff report relating to the waiving of fees and traffic concerns. Mr. Trapp stated that since this project is providing affordable housing, he suggests that the Planning • Commission consider waiving the fees for Circulation's System Improvements and Park Dedication for Affordable units. With regards to the traffic concerns expressed in the staff report, Mr. Trapp stated that he disagrees with staff. 17 to Sept her 28,' 1983 MINUTES September 22, 1983 3 � v m m a m m City of Newport Beach R O L L CALL I I I I 1 1 1 1 I INDEX I Mr. Trapp further stated that the EIR addressed the technical traffic aspects of the request and concluded that there were no significant traffic impacts. Mr. Trapp referred to page 9 of the staff report where staff has stated that the density appears to be somewhat high in comparison to other residential areas surrounding the project. Mr. Trapp feels that this is a bit misleading because the way the City calculates buildable density is to take the overall area and subtract out the street. The last item that Mr. Trapp referred to in the staff report was Condition No. 22 where staff is recommending that Mr. Trapp sound attenuate the units to 45 CNEL. Mr..Trapp further stated that there is no problem with that, but that his only concern is that it requires a dBA CNEL be calculated with the windows open. Standard procedure requires that 45 dBA CNEL be calculated wit the windows closed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, • Mr. Talarico stated that staff has worked extensively with the Eastbluff Homeowners Association and he feels that the 45 dBA CNEL most closely resembled what the adjacent home owners indicated they desired for attenuation. Mr. Talarico stated that in terms of the 3 issues that the applicant raised about park, traffic and noise fair share type amounts; and sound attenuation, it is the opinion of City staff that in going from 38 units, which are presently permitted, to 198 units that is a significant incentive to providing low cost housing. With regard to the five foot setback issue, Mr. Trapp stated that the road widths for the outside circulation system and for the auto course were all approved by the Engineering Department and the Fire Department. The widths shown for those streets meet the City criteria for traffic and engineering. Mr. Trapp further stated that from a design standpoint the foot overhang really enhances the project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Trapp stated that the thing that makes his project unique from other projects is that the other projects are with The Irvine Company. • Mr. Talarico added that Planning Department staff has had two other projects providing affordable housing both of which are paying noise wall fees. The smallest 18 COMNYSSIONERS MINUTES September 22, 1983 � r m 0 m m o w. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I 1 1 INDEX of those projects being a 17 unit project on 32nd Street. Mr. Hewicker made a comment on Condition No. 18 with respect to a specific time frame for the affordability stating that it specifically talks about a time frame and not a time in perpetuity. Motion There being no further discussion, motion was made to continue Items No. 12 through 18, to the Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 1983, asking staff to come back with information that totals up all of the number of units, acres, affordable units, etc. for the three General Plan Amendments. All Ayes IXIX IX IX IX F F I Motion was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. x x x Request to adjust the common area lot lines for the Item #19 • purpose of eliminating structural encroachments on lots LOT LINE located in Tract No. 6230. ADJDSTMEI NO. 83 -3 LOCATION: Tract No. 6230, located on the northerly side of Vista Del Oro, between Vista Del Sol and Vista Del Playa, in the Bluffs. ZONE: R- 4- B2 -PRD APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Jim Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Continue( Planning Department has received a request from The to Octob( Irvine Company on Item No. 19 - Lot Line Adjustment 20, 1983 No. 83 -3, in the Bluffs, that this item be continued to October 20, 1983. Motion IX I Motion was made to continue Lot Line Adjustment All Ayes X X % X No. 83 -3 to the Planning Commission Meeting of October 20, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. x x x Request to amend a previously approved use permit which • allowed the establishment of the Hemingway's Restaurant facility with on -sale alcoholic beverages in the C -1 District. The proposed amendment is a request to change the restaurant's hours of operation so as to 19 MINUTES September 22, 1983 r . V w m a °; City of Newport Beach R O L L CALL X 1 1 1 J i l l I INDEX permit a lunch time operation during the week. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an off -site parking agreement which will provide the additional required daytime restaurant parking. The proposed off -site parking lot is located to the rear of the "Flower Man" facility on the northerly side of East Coast Highway. One potential route of the valet service for patrons' automobiles to the off -site parking lot is down the alley at the rear of the restaurant site to Fourth Avenue, then to Avocado Avenue, and then across East Coast Highway to the parking lot. LOCATION: Lots No. 5 and 6, Block B, Tract No. 470; Lots No. 7 and 9, Block 730, Corona del Mar Tract located at 2441 East Coast Highway, on the southwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Carnation Avenue (i.e., restaurant site); and the northerly side of East Coast Highway, • between MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Center Drive (i.e., off -site parking site), in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Randall H. Johnson dba Hemingway's, Corona del.Mar OWNER: James B. Wood, Corona del Mar The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Randall Johnson, applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Johnson submitted letters to the Commission from people in support of the project. Mr. Johnson referred to staff's comments in the staff report stating that staff opposes his proposal because of the potential adverse impact in the residential area. Mr. Johnson further stated that there is vehicular noise through the alleys and residential streets which does exist at present. Mr. Johnson stated that he has no objections to staff's conditions for his proposal in Exhibit "B" for approval, and that he would like to put emphasis on Condition of Approval No. 8 which gives the Commission • I I I I I I the opportunity to review this request after six months. 20 L_J MINUTES September 22, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Johnson stated that The Irvine Company does support his proposal and has done so via a letter. Mr. Johnson further stated that a letter of opposition from Mrs. Marilyn Ellis made some harsh statements responding in a negative way because of the expanded use of alcoholic beverages and business hours and goes on saying that she does not want patrons from any restaurant, i.e., Rothchild's, Hemingway's, Sherman Gardens, etc. parking on residential streets either during the daytime or at nighttime. Mr. Johnson stated that he will address the valet system as time permits.. Mr. Johnson further stated that he has an 80 seat restaurant which operates at approximately 80% occupancy, taken from nighttime records. It is optimistically hoped that at least two seatings and approximately 130 lunches a day.can be done. Ms. Karen Lawrence, representing Southland Parking, head of the valet parking service at Hemingway's, appeared before the Commission stating that the insurance company for Hemingway's has had no claims against the valet attendants with Hemingway's. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis., Ms. Lawrence stated that in reference to the chart showing different vehicular routes to and from Hemingway's, the routes proposed by the applicant are preferred over the routes proposed by staff. The proposed route of the applicant is driving down the alley to 4th Street, to Avocado Avenue, across East Coast Highway at Avocado Avenue and into the lot. Returning to the restaurant, the preferred route is to come back behind the Newport Harbour National Bank building to MacArthur Boulevard, and down MacArthur Boulevard to the restaurant site. Mr. Jim Wood, property owner of Hemingway's, stated he believes there is already traffic in the area and that . the fact that a lunch time operation is being requested is unsolicited. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Wood stated that the parking lot demand cannot be predicted on a day -to -day basis. Mr. David Neish, • that the support request is unique to Mr. Johnson's Heminingway's. representing the applicant, stated in the community for the applicants and that a lot of the credit is due reputation and the reputation of 21 INDEX � r V m m m o m moo_ 0 L_J MINUTES September 22, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Johnson stated that The Irvine Company does support his proposal and has done so via a letter. Mr. Johnson further stated that a letter of opposition from Mrs. Marilyn Ellis made some harsh statements responding in a negative way because of the expanded use of alcoholic beverages and business hours and goes on saying that she does not want patrons from any restaurant, i.e., Rothchild's, Hemingway's, Sherman Gardens, etc. parking on residential streets either during the daytime or at nighttime. Mr. Johnson stated that he will address the valet system as time permits.. Mr. Johnson further stated that he has an 80 seat restaurant which operates at approximately 80% occupancy, taken from nighttime records. It is optimistically hoped that at least two seatings and approximately 130 lunches a day.can be done. Ms. Karen Lawrence, representing Southland Parking, head of the valet parking service at Hemingway's, appeared before the Commission stating that the insurance company for Hemingway's has had no claims against the valet attendants with Hemingway's. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis., Ms. Lawrence stated that in reference to the chart showing different vehicular routes to and from Hemingway's, the routes proposed by the applicant are preferred over the routes proposed by staff. The proposed route of the applicant is driving down the alley to 4th Street, to Avocado Avenue, across East Coast Highway at Avocado Avenue and into the lot. Returning to the restaurant, the preferred route is to come back behind the Newport Harbour National Bank building to MacArthur Boulevard, and down MacArthur Boulevard to the restaurant site. Mr. Jim Wood, property owner of Hemingway's, stated he believes there is already traffic in the area and that . the fact that a lunch time operation is being requested is unsolicited. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Wood stated that the parking lot demand cannot be predicted on a day -to -day basis. Mr. David Neish, • that the support request is unique to Mr. Johnson's Heminingway's. representing the applicant, stated in the community for the applicants and that a lot of the credit is due reputation and the reputation of 21 INDEX MINUTES September 22, 1983 a m ° w. City of Newport Beach Woo 1 ROLL CALL I III III I I INDEX ■ In response to a question posed by .Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the properties on the northerly side of East Coast Highway where the temporary bank facilities are located, are under a license agreement between The Irvine Company and the tenants. Those use permits expire at the end of September and will be reviewed by the City Council at their first meeting in October. At that time, there will be the question of extensions on the use permits and there will probably be some requirements requested by staff regarding certain road improvements at East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. Mr. Hewicker further stated that under the terms of the license agreement, he is not sure how much longer the banks can operate on the property. However, the reason why the City has put time limits on the bank facilities is the fact that the City is waiting for The Irvine Company to prepare Planned Community Development Plans • for the ultimate development of the property. Motion was made for the approval Use Permit No. 1778 (Amended), subject to the Findings and Conditions of Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Goff stated that he will not support the motion for the reason that the he does not believe the parking problem in Corona del Mar will be alleviated by granting exceptions to the Municipal Code or any other planning guidelines. Commissioner Winburn stated that she too is opposed to the motion for the reason that she has not seen anything new that has been developed that was not in the original staff report. Commissioner Balalis stated that he is in favor of this request for the reason that he has always supported a joint -use parking plan. Amendment to the motion was made for a 90 -day review period. Amendment to the motion was accepted. !'That the Planning Commission may add and /or modify conditions of approval to this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject 22 Mr. Hewicker referred to Condition of Approval No. 8, "That the Planning Commission shall review this request • after six months. ", and Condition of Approval No. 9, !'That the Planning Commission may add and /or modify conditions of approval to this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject 22 MINUTES September 22, 1983 � F � r 9 m m a m ° w. City of Newport Beach INDEX of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the community ". Mr. Hewicker stated that even if the Commission approved a six month period, and something happened which caused the Commission to have some concern, the Commission could call the matter up for review prior to the end of the six month period. Commissioner Person accepted Mr. Hewicker's statement that the 90 -day review period was not necessary. Motion I JXJX IX I I There being no further discussion, motion was now made A es X X for approval of Use Permit No. 1778 (Amended) , which Noes X MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. • 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The off -site parking area is located so as to be useful to the proposed restaurant use. 4. Parking on such off -site lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 5. That the applicant has entered into an appropriate lease for the off -site parking spaces, which is of sufficient duration for the proposed development. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1778 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 7. The proposed use of a valet parking service will not,. under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed • use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the 23 September 22, 1983 r V ro m a m 0 w. City of Newport Beach legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as may be noted below. 2. That an off -site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council, guaranteeing that a minimum of thirty two parking spaces shall be provided for the duration of the proposed use on property located at 2166 East Coast Highway. 3. That the valet parking service be provided at all times during the restaurant's hours of operation. 4. That the City Traffic Engineer shall approve the • specific valet operation and route. 5. That all previously approved applicable Conditions of Use Permit No. 1778 (Amended) shall remain in effect. • 6. That the daytime hours of the restaurant facility shall be from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. daily. 7. That all employees shall park on the off -site parking lot. 8. That the Planning Commission shall review this request after six months. 9. That the Planning Commission may add and /or modify conditions of approval to 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 or welfare of the community. z x 24 MINUTES INDEX September 22, 1983 m ° m City of Newport Beach o m;o MINUTES INDEX Request to amend a previously approved use permit which Item #21 established a take -out ice cream facility (Haagen Dazs) in the C -1 District. The proposed amendment is to change the hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily to 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 a.m..to 12:00 midnight on Friday and USE PERMIT Saturday. NO. 2099 LOCATION: Lot 15, Block 14, Section 4, of the Balboa Island Tract, located at 332 -A Marine Avenue, on the easterly side of Marine Avenue, .between Balboa Avenue and the DENIED Balboa Island bridge, on Balboa Island. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANTS: Stephen and Lynn Curtis, Balboa Island OWNERS: Same as applicants • USE PERMIT The public hearing opened in connection with this item NO. 2099 and Mr: Ed Siebel, attorney, representing the applicants, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Siebel stated that the applicants had originally requested a closing time of 12:00 midnight on Friday and Saturday, APPROVED but after meeting with the community associations, they CONDI, have subsequently changed their request to be open TIONALLY until 11:00 p.m. daily. n U Mr. Siebel stated that illegal alley parking and noise can not be directly attributed to the Haagen -Dazs facility, as parking and noise are problems on the entire Balboa .Island. He stated that the applicants have posted the required "no parking" signs on the alley and the management of the facility asks persons to move their vehicles if they are parked illegally. Mr. Siebel stated that the majority of the patrons who would visit the facility between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. are either residents of Balboa Island and walk to the facility, or are persons who have already parked their vehicles on Balboa Island and stop in for ice cream after, eating dinner at another restaurant on Balboa Island. 25 COMMISSIONERS i x r $ o m m C > > > m m w • • September 22, 1983 MINUTES of Newport Beach. Mr. Siebel stated that the possible solutions to the illegal alley parking have been addressed in the staff report. He stated that it has also been suggested to stripe a portion of the alley in red to restrict parking. He stated that these solutions would have to be discussed with the adjoining neighborhood before such solutions could be implemented. Mr. Siebel stated that the air - conditioning unit has been moved to the roof from the garage area to alleviate any mechanical noise which may be generated by the unit. He stated that the noise generated by traffic or idling vehicles can not all be attributed to the Haagen -Dazs facility. Mr. Siebel referred to .a petition which had been submitted in opposition to the proposed request. He stated that the majority of the signatures were from residents lorlated on Onyx Avenue and The Grand Canal which would not be impacted by the proposed request. He submitted to the Planning Commission, letters which the applicant has received from four residents located directly behind the facility. He stated that these residents which would be most directly affected are agreeable to an 11:00 p.m. closing. He stated that the Balboa Island Improvement Association has approved an 11:00 p.m. closing and that the Balboa Island Business Association has approved an 11:59 p.m. closing on Friday and Saturday. Commissioner Balalis stated that at the Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 1982, Mr. Siebel had stated that the applicants had agreed to modify their hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.M. Mr. Siebel stated that the original. request was for 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. He stated that the majority of the original negotiations were to limit the morning hours. He stated that the 10:00 p.m. closing was not a major issue. He stated that the applicants inadvertently remained opened until 11:00 p.m..and are now requesting the one additional evening hour. Mr. Ray Lowy, President of the Balboa Island Business Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Lowy stated that the majority of the businesses located on Marine Avenue continue to do business after their permitted business hours. W. INDEX MINUTES September 22, 1983 � r a m ° City of Newport Beach 1 R ( X L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX ■ Mr. Lowy stated that the applicants have submitted their amended use. permit application to legally change their hours of operation. He stated that the applicants heavily participate in the sidewalk cleaning efforts of the community. He stated that long before the Haagen -Dazs facility existed, there has been noise and illegally parked vehicles in the alley. Mrs. Lynn Newton, resident of 1407 North Bay Front, located behind the Haagen -Dazs facility, appeared before the Commission. Mrs. Newton referred to her letter dated September 21, 1983, and expressed her concerns relating to evening noise and traffic problems. which impacts the adjoining residential neighborhood. She stated that the applicants were flagrant in violating their 10:00 p.m. closing because during the summer a sign was posted in their facility which stated an 11:00 p.m. closing. She urged the Planning Commission to deny the proposed request. • Ms. Mary Kramer, resident of 1403 North Bay Front, stated that she has lived at this location for 39 years. She stated that the parking congestion in the alley, along with vehicle fumes, and the noise generated from the patrons of the Haagen -Dazs facility is detrimental to the surrounding residential neighborhood. She stated that the alley has been a fire lane since 1939 and should be marked in red and designated as a fire lane with no parking. She stated that the applicants have been cooperative in posting the alley with no parking signs, but the signs are usually stolen. Commissioner Balalis suggested that perhaps the Planning Commission should recommend to the staff and Public Works Department to ensure that the alley is marked properly for no parking and that the Police Department patrol the alley to issue parking tickets to violators. Commissioner Goff asked if it is necessary to approve this use permit to enact a more specific condition relating to the parking in the alley. Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that the items relating to parking and access in and out of the alley, should be referred to the Traffic Affairs Committee which would lJ take steps to resolve. these problems. Commissioner Balalis stated that this is an excellent suggestion. 27 MINUTES September 22, 1953 � r y m m City, of Newport Beach m � � 1 R O L L CALL I I I I I I I I IINDEX ■ Commissioner Goff stated that referring these items to the Traffic Affairs Committee will only prolong the problems which need to be rectified immediately. He stated that Condition No. 10 on the original use permit approval requires that the adjoining alleys shall be posted for "no parking ". Mr. Robert Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Condition No. 10 could be clarified or the meaning could be expanded upon by the Planning Commission's action tonight. Commissioner Goff asked if Condition No. 10 could be expanded upon without approving the amendment to the use permit. Mr. Gabriele stated that Condition No. 10 does not indicate how the "no parking" is to be posted. Mr. Gabriele stated that the Planning Commission has the authority to clarify or better define Condition No. 10 without approving the amendment to the use permit. • I I I I I I I I In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person, Mr. Webb stated that the alley is City property. Ms. Betty Felling, resident of 309 Grand Canal, stated that she is a longtime resident of Balboa Island. She stated that the alley is the only means by which many of the residents obtain access to their homes. She stated that when the patrons of the Haagen -Dazs facility park their vehicles in the alley, residents like herself, can not get home. She stated that she has submitted a letter which contains many signatures from residents along the Grand Canal which are opposed to the extended hours of operation. Commissioner Balalis asked Ms. Felling if she would be opposed to the extended hours of operation if the parking problems were resolved. Ms. Felling stated that during the winter months the closing should be at 10:00 P.M. She stated that not all people walk on Marine Avenue to visit the Haagen -Dazs facility, she stated that many people walk along the Grand Canal to obtain access to the facility and then eat their ice cream on the seawall to enjoy the water on the Grand Canal which impacts the adjacent residential uses. She • 11 I I I I stated that she would consider the 11:00 p.m. closing f from July 4th through Labor Day. M COMMISSIONERS1 MINUTES September 22, 1983 ix v s m • of Newport Beach Mr. Stephen Curtis, the applicant, stated that he is a resident and a businessman in the City of Newport Beach. He stated that he has invested a substantial amount of money to provide a quality facility. He stated that he has lived on Balboa Island for six years and that summertime on Balboa Island has always had traffic and parking problems. He stated that when they had originally agreed upon a 10:00 p.m. closing, they did not realize that there was the evening demand on Balboa Island for desserts: He admitted that he was in violation during the summer with the 11:00 p.m. closing. However, he stated that he is now attempting to correct this error and requested that the Planning Commission approve the 11:OO,p.m. closing. Mr. Dick Spearmint, resident of 1401 North Bay Front, stated that Mr. Curtis operates a very clean establishment and has coop #ated in posting "no parking" signs. However, he stated that there is substantial evidence that the use violates Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code as it pertains to the health, safety; peace and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use. He expressed his concern with the late night noise and the impacts to the adjacent neighborhood. In response to a question posed by Mr. Spearmint, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the one year review of the original use permit will be heard by the Modifications Committee next week. He stated that the Modifications Committee does not have the authority to change any of the conditions of approval, but can refer the extension of the use permit to the Planning Commission for its determination. Commissioner Balalis stated that perhaps the item should be continued until the extension of the use permit has been heard by the Modifications Committee. Mr. Siebel stated that the applicants have admitted to their mistake and are now trying to legally comply with the requirements of the City through an amendment to the use permit. Commissioner Goff stated that one year ago the Planning Commission felt as though 10:00 p.m. was an appropriate closing time, and the reasoning for the 10:00 p.m. closing may still be pertinent today. ADJ INDEX September 22, 1983 � r y m rp City, of Newport Beach Commissioner Goff stated that the Planning Commission does not punish. applicants who have violated the conditions of their use permit. He stated that the Planning Commission's decisions are not influenced by the violations. Motion x Motion was made for denial of Use Permit No. 2099, subject to the findings of Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Kurlander stated that he was initially opposed to the originally proposed hours of operation which were too long. He stated that during the deliberations on the original use permit and here at. tonight's meeting, there is strong opposition to the extended hours. Commissioner Goff stated that he would support the motion for denial. He further stated that Condition No. 10 of the original use permit should be clarified as to how the "no parking" shall be posted in the • adjoining alleys. Mr. Webb suggested that Condition No. 10 of the original use permit be worded as follows: That the adjoining alleys shall be posted for "no parking" in a manner approved by the Traffic Affairs Committee. He stated that this matter could be heard at the next Traffic Affairs Committee meeting. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Gabriele stated the Planning Commission can deny the proposed request for the extension of the hours of operation and that since the one year approval period of the original use permit expires tomorrow, the Planning Commission could then vote to approve the extension of the use permit and at that point also address the conditions on the original use permit. Commissioner Person stated whenever residential uses are located adjacent to commercial uses, whether it be in Corona del Mar or on Marine Avenue, the Planning Commission attempts to resolve the problems as best as • I I I I I I I I possible. He stated that he would be supporting the motion for denial. 30 MINUTES INDEX All Ayes lJ • COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 22, 1983 F X r $ m v m m F Of Beach Commissioner Kurlander's motion for denial of Use Permit No. 2099, was now voted on as follows, which MOTION.CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the extended closing time of 11:00 p.m. for the subject ice cream shop is not compatible with the adjoining residential uses to the north and to the east of the subject property. 2. That the current closing time of 10:00 p.m. represents a reasonable use of the property without adversely affecting the adjoining residential uses. 3. That the extended closing time of 11:00 p.m. will be detrimental to.the health, safety, peace, comforti and gen ;al wel�are of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. In response to a question posed by Mr. Gabriele, Mr. siebel stated that the applicant is desirous of renewing the.original use permit. Commissioner Goff suggested that the original use permit be extended for a period of one, year, at which time the use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He stated that Condition No. 10 should be revised subject to the determination of the Traffic Affairs Committee. Commissioner Goff requested that he be notified of the Traffic Affairs Committee meeting which will be hearing this item. Commissioner Balalis stated that rather than extending the use permit each year, the Planning Commission has the authority to call up the use permit for revocation if a violation should occur. Mr. Gabriele suggested the following condition be applied to the use permit: That the Planning Commission may add and /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 or welfare of the community. 31 INDEX Motion � 1 L J All Ayes X r 0 a XIX September 22, 1983 MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Person stated that at this point, amending Condition No. 10 will not resolve the problem. Motion was made to extend the original use permit without a time limitation attached; include the condition as stated by the Mr. Gabriele, the Assistant City Attorney; and, refer this item to the Traffic Affairs Committee as it relates to public and private property. Commissioner Goff stated that the original approval for the use permit was for a period of one year. During that one year period the problems which were originally discussed have surfaced. Ho stated that he would most likely concur with the solutions to be proposed by the Traffic Affairs Committee. He stated that at some point in the future, one year at the most, the item should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Chairman King stated that the wording as suggested by Mr. Gabriele would allow for review by the Planning Commission if a problem should occur. Motion by Commissioner Person to extend the original use permit without a time limitation attached; including the condition that the Planning Commission may add and /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 or welfare of the community; and, refer this item to the Traffic Affairs Committee as it relates to public and private property, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. 32 r1 LJ September 22, 1983 � r 9 � � a m m City of Newport Beach moo Request to establish a restaurant facility with on -sale' beer and wine in the C -1 District. AND Request to waive all the required off - street parking spaces in conjunction with a request to establish a new restaurant in the C -1 District. LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 11, Section 4, Balboa Island Tract, located at 204 Marine Avenue, on the easterly side of Marine Avenue, between Park Avenue and Balboa Avenue, on Balboa Island. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Frank's Market, Santa Ana OWNER: Myrtle M. Huycke Family Trust, Laguna Beach MINUTES INDEX Item #22 USE PERMIT NO. 3056 AND The Planning Department has indicated, in the staff I Both report, that Items No. 22 and 23 - Use Permit No. 3056 Withdrawn and Variance :NO. 1105 have been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. Applicant 33 MINUTES September 22, 1983 n �c r v m m a m o City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of. an automobile sales and service facility in the C -1 -H District. The proposed amendment is to expand the existing auto sales facility and to establish a separate automobile service facility. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces. MCI Request to waive a portion of the required off- street parking spaces in conjunction with the expansion of an existing auto sales facility. LOCATION: Lots 39 through 42 of Tract No. 1210, located as 1200 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, across from the Balboa Bay Club. • ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Albert Mardikian Engineering, Inc. /Trend Imports Sales, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant • The public hearing opened in connection with these matters, and the applicant, or a representative of the applicant, was not in attendance of the public hearing. Mr. Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that he received a phone call from Mr. Allison, the attorney representing Mr. Mardikian, the applicant, indicating that he was in Washington;. D.C., and that he was requesting on behalf of the applicant that these two applications be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 1983. Mr. Hewicker further stated that Mr. Allison also explained that although they had taken out a demolition permit to remove the glass from the structure on the rear of the property, the contractor had not had time to remove the glass to date. 34 Item #24 USE PERMIT NO. 1987 (Amended) AND Item #25 VARIANCE NO. 1107 MINUTES September 22, 1983 � r a m ° m City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Goff questioned the statement in the staff report that reads, "The applicant now owns the site and is now able to dedicate the entire 12 feet, if required." He asked if this amended use permit is denied, will the applicant be required to dedicate the 12 feet along the west Coast Highway frontage of the site that he now owns instead of only dedicating "the applicant's interest in the 12 -foot wide strip of land" as the condition was originally stated? In response to Commissioner Goff's question, Mr. Webb, City Engineer, stated that staff has interpreted the condition in such a manner that the applicant (i.e. now the property owner), would be required to dedicate the 12 -foot wide strip of land. Motion I I I I I I-xJ I Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 1987 (Amended) and Variance No. 1107, subject to the Findings in Exhibit "A ". • Commissioner Person stated that the Commission made it ultimately clear, the last time Mr. Mardikian was at the public hearing, that the Commission expected to go forward with this item, and that the Commissioners expected the applicant to be present at this meeting. All Ayes IXIXIXI V I :XIxI There being no further discussion, motion was now voted I on, which MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district which justifies the increase of the net floor area on the site and the waiver of the additional required on -site parking. 2. That the granting of this application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, since there are reasonable alternatives available to the applicant to provide adequate usable area within the existing building. The illegal construction on • I I I I I I I I the site, (i.e. enclosing the covered parking area without Building permits) eliminated available parking. 35 MINUTES September 22, 1983 3 � v m m m. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the granting of such application will, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, inasmuch as the further reduction in the available on -site parking and the increase in net floor area will adversely effect the vicinity. 40 4. That due to existing demand for parking in the general area, the waiver of 23 parking spaces in conjunction with the approval of Use Permit No. 1987 (Amended) and Variance No. 1107 will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed. use and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. x : Commissioner Goff made a motion that if the conditions of the original Use Permit No. 1987 are not adhered to within 60 days, that this request be brought back to the Commission for revocation proceedings. Substitute motion was made to set for revocation proceedings, the original use permit, Use Permit No. 1987 on October 20, 1983, for failure to comply with required conditions of approval, which MOTION CARRIED. !e t t 36 � r 9 w m a n > >c 0 m September 22, 1983 z MINUTES 1 R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 III I I INDEX ■ F-1 L-41 Excused Absence Motion was made for an excused absence for Commissioner Winburn from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. x t There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 12:25 a.m. to an Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting on September 28, 1983. 37 James Person, Secretary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission