Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/1987COMMISSIONERS yq Atn'S0�OON�m mG � �i0 99'ao 9 � f �qZ REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: October 8, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROL CALL INDEX Present x x x x x x All Commissioners present. ,t r • ES- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney • * x Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager _ W. William Ward, Senior Planner Patricia Temple, Principal Planner Don Webb, City Engineer .. Dee Edwards, Secretary 4 R !t Minutes of September 24, 1987: Minutes of 9 -24 -87 I x Motion was made to approve the September 24, 1987, bain x x x x x Planning Commission Minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION x CARRIED. Public Comments: Public Comments No persons came forth to speak on non - agenda items. x x • Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the Agenda Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 2, . 1987, in front of City Hall. Requests for Continuances: - Request for Continuance Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the applicants, The Koll Company and Taco Bell have requested that Item No. 2, Traffic Study, Use Permit No. 3278 and Resubdivision No. 849 regarding a restaurant facility located at 4101 Jamboree Road, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 1987; and he further stated that the applicants, COMMISSIONERS �G � - .1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Donley- Bennett Architects, have withdrawn Use Permit No. 3294 regarding a nonconforming duplex located at 312 Island Avenue. Motion x Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 2, All Ayes Traffic Study, Use Permit No. 3278 and Resubdivision No. 849 to the October 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Resubdivision No. 853 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single R853 parcel of land for three unit residential condominium purposes, on property located in the R -4 District. Denied LOCATION: Lot 10, Block 17, Section B, Newport _ Beach, located at 1720 West Ocean Front, on the northerly. side of West Ocean Front, between 17th Street and 18th - Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. • ZONE: R -4 APPLICANT -: Pigneri Development Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Robert Weiner, Newport Beach _ ENGINEER: Carlat Engineering, Anaheim Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, reviewed the subject application. He advised that the applicant has requested to construct a three unit condominium development on a 3,075 square foot lot in the R -4 District of West Ocean Front, which would allow one dwelling unit for every 800 square feet of lot area. Mr. Lenard commented that staff is requesting denial of the application based on the requisite modification for the proposed project. He explained that the Zoning Code requires 6 parking spaces for the triplex - one independently accessible and one covered parking space for each unit; however, he said that the only feasible project design would be to provide side yard and tandem parking wherein the two parking spaces in the side yard would be uncovered. Mr. Lenard stated that .within the R -4 District from • 15th Street to 20th Street on the ocean front there are 13 triplexes and fourplexes. He explained that -2- COMMISSIONERS dG � ENO -9y ,c q qj, qy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX subsequent to an approval by the Planning Commission of a triplex located at 1818 West Ocean Front, staff reviewed and concluded that because of the potential increase in density between 15th Street and 20th Street plus the inability to design adequate on -site parking because of the limited width and access of lots within said area, that staff would not support future applications for triplexes in that area. He stated that staff sent letters to property owners within the area who were familiar with the 1818 West Ocean Front application to explain that staff would not recommend approval of further triplex applications. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy; Mr. Lenard and William Ward, Senior Planner, explained that the Uniform Building Code requires a five foot sideyard setback for a structure with an R -1 Occupancy which has door or window openings facing a side property line. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Charles Pigneri, 1131 East Balboa Boulevard, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pigneri stated that when the Approval in Concept was returned to him that the only correction that was requested was a Resubdivision, and he explained the difference of opinion that he had with staff regarding the interpretation of the required three accessible and three covered parking spaces required for the triplex. Discussion followed between Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Lenard and Mr. Ward regarding the design of the proposed tandem parking spaces, wherein it was stated that the tandem parking spaces would be jointly accessible to two dwelling units, and that one dwelling unit would have both required parking spaces uncovered which would require a modification. Discussion ensued between Mr. Pigneri, Chairman Person, and Mr. Lenard regarding the interpretation of the Municipal Code relating to parking spaces. Mr. Pigneri alleged that he has complied with the Municipal Code regarding the three covered parking spaces and three accessible parking spaces. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Lenard replied that tandem parking requirements are identical for • condominium units and rental units. -3- COMMISSIONERS dG�,9N99AV �,,, 9 ° yo y °4y C`i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Chairman Person; Mr. Pigneri replied that the three dwelling units total approximately 4,000 square feet of living space. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Pigneri replied that he was not aware of the aforementioned letter that staff had mailed to property owners in the area, that he submitted the Approval in Concept approximately three months ago, and that he is in the process of purchasing the subject property. In response to Commissioner Koppelman's request regarding a clarification of the Municipal Code, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, referred to Section 20.10.050 of the Municipal Code which states "for each dwelling unit there shall be at least one covered parking space "; "for each dwelling unit, there shall be at least one independently accessible parking space "; and "tandem parking up to a maximum of two cars in depth shall be permitted. ". Ms. Korade explained that the aforementioned requirements would appear to be accumulative requirements for one dwelling unit and not for numerous dwelling units sharing parking spaces which would make the parking requirements ineffective and counter - productive. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman considered the lack of parking in the subject area and the inadequate parking design that the applicant presented, and she concluded that Motion x the design would not be a workable solution. Motion was made to deny Resubdivision No. 853 subject to the Findings in Exhibit "A ". _ Commissioner Pomeroy reasoned that the intent that was written into the parking regulations is what was described, that the regulations are not specific, and they are not clear and could be interpreted differently. He stated that Mr. Pigneri was "caught in the middle" after staff had changed position and that Mr. Pigneri has a vested interest in the project. He recommended that staff rewrite the Ordinance so that Substitute there is no question in the future. Substitute motion Mion x was made to approve Resubdivision No. 853. Commissioner DiSano stated that he would support. the substitute motion on the basis of the aforementioned statement. -4- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ■ ROLT-CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX ■ 0 Ayes Noes • 0MMMES ©iA0 Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the original motion because there could be similar requests in the future. Discussion followed regarding "vested interest ", and Commissioner Pomeroy clarified his remark by stating that he was referring to the time and effort expended on the project by the applicant. Chairman Person stated that he would support the substitute motion, and that he would request to direct staff to send out public notices to property owners between 15th Street and 20th Street notifying them of a public hearing requesting to downzone the R -4 District to R -2 District or less. Mr. Lenard advised that an Approval in Concept is not issued until after discretionary action and that one was not issued to the applicant; however, he did receive an official correction notice. Mr. Lenard pointed out that the applicant was advised that a modification would be required; however, he chose to come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Debay described the oceanfront lot where she resides, and the parking congestion in that area. She stated that she would support the original motion and she concurred that the Planning Commission should not approve these projects now or in the future; that the area between 15th Street and 20th Street should be downzoned; and she recommended that the City refund the fee to the applicant. Chairman Person commented that his residential property is similar to the proposed triplex, and that he could not visualize the proposed project on his lot. He withdrew his support for the substitute motion to support the original motion and he also supported the. recommendation of the fee refund to the applicant. Substitute motion to approve Resubdivision No. 853 was voted on and DENIED. Motion was voted on to deny Resubdivision No. 853 subject to the findings in Exhibit "A ", including the request to refund the fee paid to the City by the x x x x x applicant. MOTION CARRIED. x -5- COMMISSIONERS _ 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed subdivision for a three unit condominium development is not in conformance with the development standards of the Zoning District in which the property is located inasmuch as such development would not be in conformance with the covered parking requirement for the third dwelling unit. 2. That the subject property, by reason of its limited width and limited vehicular access, is not physically suitable for a three unit development. 3. That proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the Local Coastal Program inasmuch as the project does not provide the required parking in the manner prescribed by Section 20.10.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) - -Item No.2 Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with TS the construction of a drive -in and take -out restaurant 5P3278 facility with indoor and outdoor seating areas; and the R849 acceptance of an environmental document. Continued AND to 10 -22 -87 B. Use Permit No. 3278 (Continued Public Hearing) - Request to permit the construction of a Taco Bell drive -in and take -out restaurant facility with indoor and outdoor seating areas; and a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. AND C. Resubdivision No. 849 (Continued Public Hearing) - Request to create one parcel of land for restaurant purposes and one parcel of land for off - street parking purposes where one parcel of land now exists. • -6- COMMISSIONERS ZA AF q iPO�B mG�� �NQ9f� �y�yk y ��y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Parcel No. 7 of Parcel Map 82 -713 (Resubdivision No. 731), located at 4101 Jamboree Road, on the northwesterly side of Jamboree Road; northeasterly of MacArthur Boulevard in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P -C APPLICANTS: Aetna Life Insurance Company, c/o The Koll Company, Newport Beach; and Taco Bell Corporation, Santa Ana OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, Irvine Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the October 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting: • Motion was made and voted on to continue Traffic Study, Motion x Use Permit No. 3278, and Resubdivision No. 849 to the All Ayes October 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. - • t r, Use Permit No. 2035 (Amended) (Public Hearing) item No.3 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of the original China UP2035(A) Palace Restaurant with on -sale beer and wine on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" Continued area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. The to proposed amendment involves a request to delete two 10 -22 -87 previously established conditions of approval which required the installation of a grease interceptor, . within the restaurant's drainage system; and the preparation and implementation of a landscape plan for the off -site parking area. LOCATION: A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2930 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast High- way, between Riverside Avenue and North Newport Boulevard, in Mariner's Mile. -7- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROLT CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX ■ 0 ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANTS: Ye -Ter Mau and Wei -Tzan Mau, Newport Beach OWNER: Said Shokrian, Corona del Mar Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, reported that in 1981 an Off -Site Parking Agreement was signed by the applicant, Mr. Mau and the property owner, Mr. Shokrian, wherein it was stated that the lessee shall comply with all of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit, and the conditions were attached and incorporated into the Off -Site Parking Agreement. She stated that inasmuch as Condition No. 6 of the aforementioned conditions required landscaping, Mr. Mau agreed to the landscaping, and Mr. Shokrian has signed and agreed to Mr. Mau's landscaping of the off -site parking parcel. Ms. Korade explained that the City may enforce the conditions against Mr. Mau and Mr. Mau can enforce the ability to perform the conditions against Mr. Shokrian. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, William Ward, Senior Planner, explained that the China Palace Restaurant opened in 1981, and in 1986, when the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission, he said the staff reported that four of the conditions originally imposed in 1981 had not been complied with including the landscape condition. Mr. Ward stated that Mr. Mau was not cooperative in complying with the conditions although no official action was taken by the Planning Department or the City Attorney's office to obtain compliance. Mr. Ward commented that the conditions are not currently an issue since the restaurant has been closed. However, he said that Mr. Mau is attempting to comply with all of the conditions. originally approved so as to reopen the restaurant. In. response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Ward replied that one letter was submitted to Mr. Mau requesting that the landscaping be completed, and that the matter was not brought back to the Planning Commission. - In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, • Mr. Ward explained the aforementioned four conditions that Mr. Mau did not comply with as follows: Condition No. 1 regarding substantial conformance to the approved restaurant floor plan, Condition No. 3 regarding the COMMISSIONERS y�(X - 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX screening of roof mounted mechanical equipment; Condition No. 6 regarding the landscaping of the off -site parking area; and Condition No. 10 regarding the installation of a grease interceptor. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person and Commissioner Winburn, Mr Ward replied that Mr. Mau dedicated his interest in the 12 foot right -of -way subsequent to the November 20, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Steve Ellis, 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, counsel for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ellis stated that the applicant concurs with staff's recommendation that the condition regarding the grease interceptor be waived, and that the applicant is requesting that the landscaping condition be waived because the applicant does not have the approval of the property owner, Mr. Shokrian to install the landscaping. Mr. Ellis explained that the applicant has requested written consent from Mr. Shokrian to permit the installation of the grease interceptor and the landscaping. He said that Mr. Mau attempted to install the grease interceptor; however, Mr. Shokrian filed a complaint with the Building Department because the hole that had been dug for the grease interceptor unit was on the parking lot property, and the Off -Site Parking Agreement only permits the applicant to park automobiles and Mr. Mau did not have an easement to dig down into the sewer line to install the grease interceptor. He said that Mr. Shokrian advised Mr. Mau that he may install the grease interceptor if Mr. Mau would give up his rights to the parking lot; however, Mr. Mau did not consent to that suggestion because he would not have the required number of parking spaces to comply with the City's parking requirements. Mr. Shokrian also would not consent to landscaping containers on the parking lot. Mr. Ellis explained that the landscaping requirement was not originally complied with because the applicant discovered that the asphalt over the parking area covers the foundation of a previous building and there is four to five feet of concrete under the asphalt. Mr. Ellis stated that Mr. Shokrian has demonstrated on previous occasions to bring a lawsuit on technical • defaults with the lease. Mr. Ellis stated that Mr. Mau does not want to be in a position to sue Mr. Shokrian, and that Mr. Mau has attempted to comply with the conditions that the City has imposed on the restaurant. -9- COMMISSIONERS �0 �o y�Gt^�J'�9gA9�'$c Gff$O _ 4 t y ! ?'vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Ellis stated that the applicant originally had signed a 5 year lease, from 1981 to 1986, with a 5 year option; that the applicant has been paying $4,000.00 a month since November, 1986; and that he has a substantial investment in building improvements. Mr. Ellis concurred, with Commissioner Koppelman that Mr. Mau renewed his lease despite the fact that the applicant had not complied with the landscaping condition. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Ellis stated that the restaurant facility has been closed since January, 1987; however, the applicant has attempted to satisfy the grease interceptor and landscaping conditions since May, 1987, so that he may be permitted to open the restaurant. Commissioner Winburn referred to the new .China Palace Restaurant opened in January, 1987, located at Riverside Avenue and West Coast Highway, and in • response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Ellis explained that the purpose Mr. Mau closed the subject restaurant when the new China Palace Restaurant was opened was to be able to remodel the subject restaurant to a take -out restaurant facility, and that he has been deprived of the take -out restaurant's business since May, 1987. Mr. Said.Shokrian, property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. In reference to the staff report wherein it is stated that the property owner refuses to give Mr. Mau approval to comply with the installation of the grease interceptor and the landscaping as conditions approved by the Planning Commission on November 20, 1986, Mr. Shokrian rebutted that the applicant has never submitted landscaping plans to him. In reference to the grease interceptor, Mr. Shokrian . responded that an easement was not discussed when the condition was approved by the Planning Commission and he questioned if the applicant needs to encroach into the parking lot. Mr. Shokrian suggested that the applicant be responsible for the cost to remove the man hole if the Planning Commission waived the condition. Chairman Person commented that the matter must be settled between the applicant and the property owner. • Commissioner Koppelman asked Mr. Shokrian if he did agree in the lease to allow the landscaping, and did he have any objections to the applicant submitting a plan -10- COMMISSIONERS �0 �NOMm y y ( Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL 7CALL INDEX to him, and if he would agree to a landscaping plan on the parcel of property next door in the parking lot? Mr. Shokrian replied that he was not unreasonably going to object to any landscaping plans. Mr. Shokrian concurred with Commissioner Koppelman's statement that he would not unreasonably withhold approval of a landscaping plan approved by the City. Mr. Shokrian testified that he was concerned that the debris in the parking lot had created a public hazard; that there would be two Chinese restaurants within 50 yards of each other; that Mr. Mau made everyone believe that he was relocating the subject restaurant to the new restaurant facility; that Mr. Mau has decided that he may be able to sell the subject restaurant; that there is a pending lawsuit regarding Mr. Mau's right to be located on the subject site; that Mr. Mau may sell the restaurant and Mr. Shokrian may not know how much grease would be generated into the sewer system. In response to a question posed by Commissioner • Merrill, Mr. Shokrian replied that the other business that shares the parking lot is Alpha Electronics. Chairman Person and Mr. Shokrian discussed the lawsuits that are currently pending regarding the subject restaurant. Mr. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the Health Department is not in favor of grease interceptors, he commented on the unpleasant task of cleaning same, and he concurred that a new restaurant may have a different type of grease. Mr. Soffer suggested that landscape window boxes could be considered for landscaping. Mr. Ellis reappeared before the Planning Commission, and in response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Ellis replied that the lease option expires on October 29, 1991. Mr. Mau, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to briefly address the subject application. Mr. Ellis reappeared before the Planning Commission and he referred to the correspondence with Mr. Greg Lee, Mr. Shokrian's attorney, regarding landscaping. Mr. Ellis stated that Mr. Mau would not object if the Planning Commission requested to continue the subject application. -11- COMMISSIONERS yA 0001 y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 2035 Motion x (Amended) to the October 22, 1987, Planning Commission All Ayes meeting, and that Mr. Mau submit landscaping plans to Mr. Shokrian and the Planning Department by the close of business on October 14, 1987. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. x x x Use Permit No. 3273 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3273(A) permitted the construction of a 152 unit senior congre- gate living facility on property located in the A -P Approved [0.8) District. Said approval also included a request to allow a portion of the building to exceed the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District; a request to exceed the 0.8 Floor Area Ratio limit; and a request to establish an off - street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula. The proposed amend- ment involves a request to make various changes to the previously approved plan so as to reduce the size of two of the original buildings and expand a third building which will be two stories over parking. Said building will also exceed the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District. The proposed changes to the development plan will reduce the number of units to 148. LOCATION: Lot 1, Tract No. 11018, located at 1455 Superior Avenue, on the north- westerly side of Superior Avenue, between Placentia Avenue and Hospital Road, in the West Newport Triangle area. ZONE: A -P [0.8] -- APPLICANT: Norlyn Builders, Beverly Hills OWNER: Same as applicant Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, reviewed the proposed project's building design and parking areas. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Christopher Laurance, 156 Woodburn, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission • on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Laurance stated that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". -12- COMMISSIONERS �c N�"0 ° 'Yl, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL rCALL INDEX Mr. Donald Jackson, 1455 -H Superior Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Jackson inquired if a sidewalk will be constructed and how the automobiles will be circulating. Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that the site plan does not show that a sidewalk will be provided along the easement area. Commissioner Debay and Mr. Webb discussed the 20 foot setback area. Mr. Webb pointed out that there is a sidewalk along Superior Avenue but not on Medical Lane. Chairman Person stated that automobiles will not be permitted to back out onto Superior Avenue. Chairman Person referred to Condition No. 40, Final Findings and Conditions approved by City Council on July 27, 1987, which states that "the Medical Lane easement shall be designated a "Fire Lane" to the rear property line, and applicant shall irrevocably offer to dedicate a portion of the easement to public pedestrian access." Mr. David Green appeared before the Planning Commission • on behalf of the developers and he requested a modification to the 10 foot easement along the property line. Discussion followed regarding the request, and Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission cannot act upon an amendment to a use permit that has not been adequately noticed. Mr. Laurance reappeared before the Planning Commission and Chairman Person asked if the applicants would object to a sidewalk along the Medical Lane easement? Mr. Laurance replied that the applicants were informed by the City Council that the City may consider purchasing residential property behind the subject site and turn the said property into a park. He questioned the safety of a sidewalk along the easement or along an easement that was a portion of the automobile turning radius. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Webb stated that Medical Lane is a private street, and the only area to construct a sidewalk would be in front of the parking spaces which would require that additional spaces be created to allow a four to five foot sidewalk. Chairman Person referred to dedication for public access because of • ,a the parking configuration. Mr. Jackson reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he had previously applied to the City for a building permit to construct an additional room -13- COMMISSIONERS 0 MINUTES October 8, 1,987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH to his residential property and that the City required that he construct a sidewalk, curb, and gutter. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy and Mr. Webb discussed the 30 foot easement area on Medical Lane and if there would be an area where a sidewalk could be constructed. Mr. Webb explained that automobiles would be backing out onto the easement regardless of the form of striping, and that the pedestrians would be walking in the street at their own risk. Commissioner Merrill stated that the sewer line on Medical Lane was backing up, and Mr. Webb replied that the area is under the jurisdiction of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Commissioner Merrill referred to the 5 foot wide parking spaces in the entrance area, and Mr. Webb replied that if the parking spaces do not conform to the proper width according to the Traffic Department then the parking spaces would have to be redesigned. In response to Commissioner Merrill's concerns regarding the grade and the drainage, Mr. Webb referred to Condition No. 6 concerning sight distance and he said that if the drive is too steep then the City will require that the drive be redesigned, and he said that the storm drain crosses Superior Avenue in the middle of the lot. Motion I I I I IxI I I Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3273 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Debay stated that she would support the motion. She advised Mr. Jackson that Condition No. 4 states "that the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer." Mr. Webb commented that the City will attempt to satisfy Mr. Jackson's concerns. I Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3273 All Ayes (Amended) subject to.the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. 0 -14- INDEX COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FINDING: 1. The Planning Commission and the City Council approved an environmental document in conjunction with their consideration of the previously ap- proved project. Inasmuch as all significant environmental concerns have been addressed in the previously certified environmental document and there are no additional reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with the proposed project, no further environmental review is required. B. USE PERMIT NO. 3273 (Amended). FINDINGS: - 1. The project will comply with all applicable City, • and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 2. That the project is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. That the design of the development or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed develop- ment. That the increased building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 4. That the increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 5. That the increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing devel- opments or public spaces. • 6. That the structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. -15- COMMISSIONERS y�G9y99Nay9���"�o - vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX 7. That the development will provide for more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit, in that the building will be setback 109± feet for 65 feet of the lot frontage and the front portion of the building will be setback 65± feet from the southerly property line. 8. The project will generate less traffic in the peak traffic hours than an office building developed under the provisions of the A- P(0.8) District. 9. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 10. The approval of Use Permit No. 3272 (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 the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: - - 1. That the proposed development shall be in substan- tial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and elevation, except as noted below. 2. That a minimum of 44 parking spaces (9 ft. x 18 ft.) shall be provided on site. 3. That handicap parking shall be provided in accor- dance with Title 24, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That all previous applicable conditions of ap- proval for Use Permit No. 3273 as approved by the - Planning Commission on June 18, 1987 and modified by the City Council on July 27, 1987, shall be fulfilled. * x x -16- COMMISSIONERS G9y ,toy9C` � o vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 3294 (Public Hearing) - Item No.5 Request to permit alterations and additions to an UP3294 existing nonconforming duplex on property located in the R -1 District. The proposed additions consist of Withdrawn replacing a two car carport with a two car garage and a by partially covered third parking space; construction of Applicant a new bathroom and deck area with a jaccuzi; and the construction of a new closet and an expanded bedroom. LOCATION: Lot 80, Subdivision of Block A, East _ Newport Tract, located at 312 Island Avenue, on the easterly side of Island Avenue, between Edgewater Avenue and East Bay Avenue, on the Balboa Penin- sula. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Donley- Bennett Architects, Tustin . OWNER: Shirley D. Johnstone, Newport Beach. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn inasmuch as the subject application involves alterations and additions to a non - conforming duplex in a R -1 District, which is not permitted by the Zoning Code. Use Permit No. 3295 (Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to establish a take -out restaurant specializing UP3295 in the sale of frozen yogurt and related toppings; sandwiches and pizza. The proposed facility also. proposes to include incidental seating in the restau- rant and general use seating outside in front of the restaurant, which will be available to the general public, and to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: A portion of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 49 -22 (Resubdivision No. 339), located at 2549 Eastbluff Drive on the northwesterly corner of Eastbluff Drive and Vista del Sol, in the East - bluff Shopping Center. -17- COMMISSIONERS 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX ZONE: C -N -H APPLICANT: For /For Development, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, stated that Condition No. 2 should be modified to state 30 parking spaces instead of 31 parking spaces. Mr. Leon Forsyth, 123 Zurich, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Forsyth stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of Condition No. 13 which requires one bathroom for each sex. He explained that there will be no need for two restrooms in the take -out restaurant, and that he does not have adequate space for two bathrooms. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Forsyth explained that the take -out restaurant will accommodate 12 seats with the majority of the seating outside of the restaurant which will be provided by The Irvine Company. William Ward, Senior Planner, explained that the requirement for the restrooms comes from the Uniform Plumbing Code. He stated that staff would not object if the Planning Commission modified Condition No. 13 to state "unless otherwise required by the Building Department". ; In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Forsyth replied that there is another restaurant within the shopping center that has public restrooms. Mr. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he stated that the take -out restaurant's restroom requirements would not necessarily be identical to sit down restaurant requirements according to the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Ward explained that the requirement for one restroom for each sex was a requirement from the Building Department. • Mr. Jack Valenti appeared before the Planning Commission to state a concern regarding the -18- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 8, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX aforementioned remarks, and Chairman Person explained that the Planning Department receives Plan Review Requests from other City Departments. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Chairman Person explained that the Health Department requires that the dressing rooms be separated from the restrooms. Motion x Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3295 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including aforementioned modified Condition No. 2, and amend Condition No. 13 to state "That one restroom shall be provided and that said restroom shall be accessible to the handicapped, unless otherwise required by the Uniform Building Code." Motion voted All Ayes on, 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. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities and a portion of the required off - street parking will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the, proposed take -out restaurant is to be integrated into a.larger commercial shopping center. 4. That the waiver of a portion of the required parking will not be detrimental to the neighbor- hood inasmuch as the facility will not be a destination point in and of itself and the facility will experience different peak usage times than other development at the shopping center. I I I I I ( 5. The approval of Use Permit No. .3295 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, -19- COMMISSIONERS �C 9 vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 6, 1987 ROL ALL INDEX comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved floor plans and ele- vations. 2. That the development standards pertaining to traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, utili- ties, and a portion of the required parking spaces (30 spaces) shall be waived. 3. That seven (7) parking spaces shall be required for the take -out restaurant. 4. That all employees shall be required to park on -site and that all home delivery vehicles shall also be parked on -site. 5. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold on the premises unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. 6. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 7. That all signs shall conform to Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. That a trash compactor shall be installed in conjunction with the take -out restaurant facility. 9. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless .otherwise approved by the Building Department. 10. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened. 11. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all . fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES y 0-0 October 8, 1987 dG Y 9N 99 $ 9 vx A �y � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROL CALL INDEX accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 12. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 13. That one bathroom shall be provided and that said bathroom shall be accessible to the handicapped unless otherwise required by the Uniform Building Code. 14. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health; safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare • of the community. 15. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:23 p.m. a • a Variance No. 1142 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to permit the construction of a single family V1142 dwelling on property located in the R -1 District which. exceeds the maximum permitted height in the 24/28 Foot Denied Height Limitation District. All construction will be below the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard, except for two chimneys. The proposal also includes a modifica- tion to the Zoning Code so as to allow the reconstruc- tion of an existing wall which exceeds 3 feet in height and is located within the 10 foot front yard setback area; and the acceptance of an environmental document. • -21- COMMISSIONERS OSO�B A 9 9'Op9 G9y��Qy9�! ; O 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX LOCATION: A portion of Block 033, Corona del Mar, located at 2723 Ocean Boulevard, on the southwesterly side of Ocean Boulevard, between, Fernleaf Avenue and Goldenrod Avenue in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Eric Welton, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant _ The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Eric Welton, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that he would make his comments at the end of the public hearing. Mrs. Alice Remer, 210 Goldenrod Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the Variance. Mrs. Remer pointed out the requests made by the Planning Commission during the September 10, 1987, • Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Remer commented that with the exception of casual conversation the applicant did not contact the neighbors to discuss their concerns, and that the balloon test was not successful. She said that remarks by staff regarding the public view loss were not objective inasmuch as. reference was made only to the views that would remain to the public. Mrs. Remer explained that the 10 percent view loss along 100 feet of the bluff from north of the property to just south of the property means that the public will have almost no views that are unique to that part of the bluff, which include the channel from the adjacent park, and the view of the passing boats will be obliterated. Mrs. Remer stated that when the Planning Commission passed the bluff top Ordinance on August 23, .1979, the purpose was to preserve public views from the adjoining public street and view park. Mrs. Remer referred to the structures built along the bluff and she commented that the views that were blocked depended on the roof designs, and that the steeply pitched roofs allow more view than a roof that would be extended horizontally. Mrs. Rena Robinson, 218 Goldenrod Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the Variance. Mrs. Robinson requested that the applicant . redesign the roofline so that the public would not lose the 10 percent view. _22_ COMMISSIONERS 9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Mr. Dick Nichols appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Corona del Mar Homeowner's Association. Mr. Nichols referred to front street setbacks located on City property as stated in L -2 Policy as follows: "Street curb openings shall not be permitted to residential property that abuts an alley except for corner lots where the street frontage is available for the full depth of the lot. In such cases, access from the street will be permitted where existing structures prevent full alley access. The width of the driveway curb opening shall be limited to one -half of the lot depth, in cases where adjoining street is an arterial street, access on the street will not be permitted." Mr. Nichols commented that the previous small structure built on the bluff top only did not have access to Way Lane for parking. Mr. Nichols pointed out that the proposed structure will have access to Way Lane for three parking spaces, and should not have any parking with access from Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Nichols stated that Variances are approved when the project does not cause problems or • restricts property rights for the neighbors. He commented that the proposed structure is a tremendous size on the upper level, and he suggested that the parking be removed so as to restore the public right -of -way on public land by removing the driveway and put the drive out where there is a view. Mr. Nichol referred to a study that is currently underway regarding curb cuts on Ocean Boulevard. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy; Mr. Nichols addressed the locations on Ocean Boulevard that have legal and illegal curb cuts. Mrs. Clyda Brenner, Chairman of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission appeared before the Planning Commission to request that the Planning Commission . continue this item until the said Commission has had an. opportunity to review landscape encroachments on the public right -of -way along Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Mr. John Anderson, 214 Goldenrod Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the subject application. He explained that the proposed .project is excessive; that the structure and associated encroachments would impact the neighborhood; • and that the project would serve.as a precedent as have previously approved Variances on Ocean Boulevard. Mr. -23- COMMISSIONERS 00 P � C 51sviko CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Anderson referred to the required findings for approval and he commented on the applicant's statements of support; he referred to the exhibits that he brought to the Planning Commission meeting and he explained why he considered Ocean Boulevard a "view corridor "; he pointed out that the previously approved Variances on Ocean Boulevard are noticeable inasmuch as there is a loss of view from the public right -of -way; and he commented on the 49 foot height of the proposed structure, how the roof obstructs the view, landscape encroachments, and the driveway. Mr. Frank Remer, 210 Goldenrod Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Remer referred to staff's comments regarding the proposed structure's height, the curb line, and the EIR, and he concluded that the ceiling of the proposed structure could be dropped so the chimney would not rise above the curb line. Mr. Welton reappeared before the Planning Commission, In response to concerns posed by the aforementioned • testimony, Mr. Welton presented the following rebuttal: that he reviewed with the Planning Department staff what could be done with the property, that he instructed the architect to stay within the guidelines, that the property does not exceed the 1.5 times buildable area, that it does not extend above the top of curb except to the extend allowed by the Zoning Code, that there are no encroachments within the setback area, that a new dwelling on the property would remove a small amount of view that currently exists between the now detached garage and the existing house, that the most impressive view from the structure would be from the uppermost level, that the lot is difficult because of the steepness, that the lot is the last site on the bluff to be developed and that the proposed dwelling would not set a precedent, that one appeal of the property was the existing curb cut and is an existing condition that they depended upon to remain in place, that the curb cut facilitates off- street parking which would otherwise not be available, that a removal of the driveway may ,add one parking place at the curb side but it would eliminate the two parking spaces in the garage, that he attempted to create maximum parking spaces on the site because of the severe parking restrictions that currently exist, that a continuation of the variance would create a hardship, and that he • attempted the balloon test wherein they were able to take pictures, but the balloons subsequently disappeared from the site. -24- COMMISSIONERS 000 0. �G9 - o 99� � Cy q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Commissioner Koppelman asked what portion of the house exceeds the height limit and what design of house could be built if the Variance would not be approved. Mr. Welton replied that an analysis of the previous house which was approved in conjunction with Variance No. 1127 found that the interruption of the view plane was identical to that created by the proposed project. He explained that the main attraction of the lot is to take advantage of the uppermost view, and if the house would be lowered to below top of curb then they would be losing the view that they had planned. Chairman Person commented that the view would still be spectacular if the dwelling would be lowered three to four feet, and Mr. Welton explained that according to the various sight lines that have been drawn, it would be an imperceptible difference in the view plane interruption without fully removing the top story. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Welton discussed the parapet level, the roof and room heights. Mr. Welton • explained that a scaled model has shown that a lowered ceiling would not be in proportion to the scale of the house. Mr. David Rich, 1625 East Balboa Boulevard, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Koppelman asked what portion of the house would be affected if the applicant would conform to the 24/28 foot height limit? Mr. Rich withdrew to the exhibit area and he explained the structure as it would be constructed on the bluff area. Mr. Rich explained that the structure would lose about 50 percent on the top floor, 25 percent on the second floor, 25 percent on the third floor, totalling approximately one - third of the allowable 7,000 square feet which would reduce the structure to approximately 4,000 square feet. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the parapet height and the roof over the upper deck, Mr. Rich described the structure's retaining wall and the extension of the overhang. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Rich replied that the natural slope. of the bluff was considered for the structural design and he described the potential geological hazards of the • slope. -25- COMMISSIONERS Z�G9y9.9�oy���o _ 9$ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Mr. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. He complimented the Planning Commission on the quality of the public hearing. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In. response to Commissioner Koppelman's request regarding aforementioned Council Policy L -2, Ms. Korade stated that the Policy states that no permits shall be issued for driveways on Club House Drive, Glen Drive, Balboa Island or the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard without City Council approval. No curb openings shall be permitted on Ocean Boulevard when access is available from an existing alley, street or unimproved private roadway. Ms. Korade referred to Exhibit "A ", Condition No. 7, which states "that all construction and landscaping within the Ocean Boulevard right -of -way shall be subject to the issuance of an encroachment permit approved by the City Council, prior to the issuance of building permits." Ms. Korade commented that said condition addresses the requirements of Council Policy L -2 regarding curb cuts on Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Webb stated that the existing drive approach on -site was approved by the City Council because the house was constructed at the top of the slope and it was impossible to get access from the bottom. Mr, Webb indicated that the City shall try to determine if it is justified to have garages on top of and the bottom of the slope. Discussion followed regarding Commissioner Pomeroy's statements relating to the horizontal projection of the roof line vs. the vertical projection. He commented that even if the roof line would be dropped two feet it would not make any significant difference unless the roof would have a severe pitch. Mr. Lenard explained that the City's height standards adopted for the area modified provisions that were in place at that time and the City put a restriction that no structure could exceed height of curb. He said that the horizontal projection from curb height has been what the residents are concerned about because that relates to the view plane from Ocean Boulevard. -26- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 8, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Lenard stated that the property owner is forced to work within two limitations - one limit that exceeds from curb height, or the maximum average of 24 feet above grade which ends up following the bluff down the hillside. The public hearing was reopened at this time, and Mr. Welton reappeared before the Planning Commission. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Welton replied that the parapet is an extension of the face of the garage that will be used for recreational purposes, and is a safety devise to prevent occupants of the parapet from falling over onto Way Lane. He explained that a 42" railing is required. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Welton replied that the purpose of the structure design is to utilize the view from the uppermost level and the view from the parapet level will be roof tops of the houses in China Cove. Commissioner Debay maintained that if the parapet would be lowered, then the chimney's height would be reduced. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she cannot support the project, that over 4,000 square feet can be built without exceeding the 24/28 foot height limit, that the structure would be developed on a difficult lot, and that she would request that the applicant reduce the top floor of the structure so that the height does not impair views. Motion x Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1142, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", subject to a 2 foot reduction of the height of the structure, which would include both the chimney levels and the roof of the living room structure. Substitute I I I I JxJ I I Substitute motion was made to deny Variance No. 1142, otion subject to the findings in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Koppelman questioned what a 2 foot height reduction would accomplish, that a 5,000 square foot structure can be built on -site in accordance with the Zoning 0 11111111 Code, and that she would be unable to make findings required to grant the Variance. -27- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 8, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner winburn regarding a two foot height reduction, Mr. Lenard explained that the proposed project would obstruct all of the view of the bay, and it would be difficult to determine how much of the bay would be restored if the structure would be reduced two feet. Chairman Person stated that he would support the substitute motion because it would be difficult to make the appropriate findings to support the Variance. He further stated that he was disappointed that the applicant did not attempt to work out differences or did not meet with the concerned residents in the area as previously requested by Chairman Person. Ayes x x x x Substitute motion was voted on to deny Variance No. Noes x x x 1142 subject to the findings in Exhibit "B ". MOTION CARRIED. k x • FINDINGS: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses on the other lots in the area which justify the approval o£.a further increase .in the height of the subject building. . 2. That the subject property maintains sufficient buildable area so as to permit the construction of a sufficiently large home within the required basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height . Limitation District. 3. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general . welfare of the City. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:30 p.m. and reconvened at 10:40 p.m. _28_ COMMISSIONERS '� Aaiy �r dM y F 00 9 W BGyy 9�yoy9cC � o 9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX A. General Plan Amendment 87 -1 (C) (Continued Public Item No.8 Hearing) (R1162) GPA 87 -1(C) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport CP Consist. Beach General Plan so as to allow an additional 69,500 sq.ft. of commercial development in Fashion Island, and Determin. (R1163) the acceptance of an environmental document; A632 A653 AND (R1164) B. General Plan Consistency Determination (Continued Discussion) _ Approved Determination of Consistency with the provisions of the General Plan so as to allow the transfer of 1350 committed theater seats from Civic Plaza and 350 committed theater seats from Block 300 to Fashion Island; AND • C. Amendment No. 632 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to establish Planned Community District Regulations and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for Fashion Island. The proposal also includes a request to amend portions of Districting Naps No. 48 and 49, so as to reclassify said property from the C-O-H District to the Planned Community District; _ AND D. Amendment No. 653 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend the Planned Community Development Standards of the Civic Plaza Planned Community so as to delete the 20,000 sq.ft. of existing allowable theater development; AND E. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow construction of 69,500 sq.ft. of commercial development in Fashion Island. LOCATION: Tract No. 6015, located within the ring created by Newport Center Drive in -29- COMMISSIONERS A 1. F -0 y t�t6o m� dG " iy, - yy �f y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX Newport Center (Fashion Island); and Parcel Maps 81/8, 81/9 and 175/22 -24, located southeasterly of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road (Civic Plaza). ZONES: P -C (Planned Community) and C -O -H PROPONENT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach - INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, referred to the the additional conditions regarding the General Plan Amendment that were distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing. Patricia Temple, Principal Planner, explained that the staff prepared the supplemental responses to the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report to clarify statements made in the previous draft • responses. Ms. Temple stated that staff has recommended that the following two conditions be added as Items Three and Four in the General Plan Resolution: 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, The Irvine Company shall provide the City with a letter, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney and the Planning Department, agreeing that the additional development approved in this action relative to Fashion Island will be included in the consideration of the appropriate distribution of the cost of construction of MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. 4. Occupancy permits for the development entitled by this General Plan Amendment and the related Finding of General Plan Consistency for the transfer of theater seats within Newport Center - shall not be issued until The Irvine Company submits and receives approval of redistricting to the P -C (Planned Community) district and adoption of Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan for Block 300. This zoning text • shall reflect the development entitled to the block in the Newport Beach General Plan. -30- COMMISSIONERS � 99,e9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Ms. Temple explained that Condition No. 3 was proposed by staff in response to a provision that was added into the Circulation Element of the General Plan by the City Council in consideration of the deletion of the one -way couplet and the establishment of MacArthur Boulevard as a major arterial highway. The provision that was added by the City Council would allow the use of Fair Share Funds in the ultimate construction of MacArthur Boulevard in the area which would involve the lowering of 13 feet and moving 50 feet to the west. She stated that the added condition would allow the costs of constructing MacArthur Boulevard allocated to the City (through the Fair Share Program) and The Irvine Company and /or other developers to be determined factoring in development entitlement added to the General Plan by this action, with the additional traffic which would result on MacArthur Boulevard as a result of this project be tallied on the side of the private contribution as opposed to the public contribution. In reference to Condition No. 4, Ms. Temple explained • that it has been the aim and intent throughout consideration of Newport Center to rezone the entire Newport Center to a Planned Community District and have specific Planned Community District regulations for each and every block in Newport Center. She stated that because staff is transferring the theater seats on Block 300, that staff is taking the opportunity to require The Irvine Company to rezone Block 300 to the Planned Community District and to prepare a Planned Community Development plan for Block 300. Ms. Temple suggested that this be required to be processed and approved prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Permit for the development entitled by the General Plan Amendment. The public hearing was opened in connection with this . item, and Mr. Dave Mudgett, President, Irvine Retail. Properties Company, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Mudgett stated that The Irvine Company is requesting 69,500 square feet of new retail space as well as the transfer from two other locations within Newport Center of 1,700 theater seats to create a cinema of between six to eight theaters. Mr. Mudgett explained that Fashion Island is 20 years. old, and that it needs substantial upgrading to make it more responsive to community needs, additional retail to increase the number of mall shops, and to allow it -31- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 8, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX new merchandise, pricing, and activities that The Irvine Company feels the public wants. He further explained that the theater and food court areas will add night time vitality and will enhance Fashion Island as a community focal point. Mr. Mudgett emphasized that Newport Beach is Fashion Island's primary market, and unless local needs can be met in Fashion Island, sales dollars and tax dollars will continue to be spent outside of Newport Beach. He commented that the completed phase in Fashion Island has been well received in respect to the physical environment and to the new tenants, and he added that the present construction phase will be completed in November with new tenants moving in until next spring. In reference to the Draft Resolution wherein it is stated that The Irvine Company contribute to widening improvements on Jamboree Boulevard which go beyond the improvements of the Jamboree Boulevard and Santa Barbara intersection requested in the EIR and Traffic • Study, Mr. Mudgett replied that the EIR and Traffic Study did not identify any traffic impact or need for the additional improvement relating to Fashion Island, and that The Irvine Company feels that the recommended condition should be deleted. He added that if the City wishes to make additional improvements to Jamboree Boulevard concurrent with The Irvine company's improvements to Jamboree Boulevard and Santa Barbara intersection, The Irvine Company would cooperate with the improvements and would provide any needed right -of -way which is under The Irvine Company's control. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Mudgett replied that the requested expansion of Fashion Island would begin in 1988, and that tenants would move in during the Winter of 1988 and the Spring of 1989. Mr. Dave Dmohowski, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission in response to the aforementioned conditions that were presented by Ms. Temple. Mr. Dmohowski stated that The Irvine Company will be responding to Condition No. 3 at a future date after they have had additional time to study the • request. In reference to Condition No. 4, Mr. Dmohowski explained that there is no need to tie the Occupancy Permit to an action totally within the City's control, that the City could have initiated a rezoning -32- COMMISSIONERS 9,y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX at any time prior to the public hearing, and that The Irvine Company is requesting that Condition No. 4 be deleted or amended. He explained that The Irvine Company has no conceptual problem with rezoning Block 300 to the Planned Community District. Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of SPON's opposition to the project. Mr. Nichols stated that SPON's opinion is that the General Plan entitlements should be reviewed as a General Plan Amendment; that the General Plan Amendment, a Planned Community District, should include all of Newport Center; and that no General Plan Amendments should be heard until after the General Plan Review, which SPON states has not taken place. - Mr. Jim Dale, 118 Apolena, Balboa Island, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the expansion. He referred to the variety of numerous events that have occurred at Fashion Island that have benefited visitors to Newport Beach and residents • during the past twenty years. Mr. Dale emphasized the benefits that the expansion will provide for Fashion Island, the economic benefits, and the job opportunities for the young people. Mr. Jack Ryan, Fashion Island tenant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that all of the independent merchants within Fashion Island are in support of the expansion. Ms. Gail Devorak, General Manager of Neiman- Marcus and President of the Fashion Island Merchants Association, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of . the expansion. She stated that 30 stores are owned by: Newport Beach residents, that 50 independent stores are not chain stores that are dependent upon their income from Fashion Island, that the merchants participate within the community by supporting non - profit organizations, that the Neiman - Marcus customers support the expansion, that there is a need for a variety of merchandise, a cultural center, and that it will be a good family environment. Ms. Mickey Cooper, local resident and real estate agent, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of Fashion Island. She stated that Fashion • Island needs a larger variety of stores, that the expansion will enhance the circulation to all of the -33- COMMISSIONERS �q SO� m T949 a�y9 N'y� << srzlc! CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX stores, and the nighttime activities will keep people in Fashion Island. Ms. Bridget Lehmann, Executive Director of Newport Center Association, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Board of Directors. Ms.. Lehmann stated that Newport Center has 11,000 employees, that the food court will keep the employees in Fashion Island, that the cinema will encourage employees to stay, that traffic generated will not be during peak hours, that the expanded retail will allow for improved tenant mix for the employees and the community, and that the future tenants will provide the balance that is needed. Mr. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Soffer referred to objections that have been made regarding the traffic that would be generated by the expansion of Newport Center, and he used as an example, moving Fashion Island out of Newport Beach and into another Orange • County city, and he commented that not only would the residents be taking the money spent out of the City but they would be leaving Newport Beach by way of one of the City's streets which would create additional traffic. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Mr. Lenard referred to Conditions No. 3 and No. 4. He stated that staff would agree to amend the following language as Condition No. 4: "That prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, The Irvine Company shall provide the City with a letter indicating their willingness to allow the City to rezone the parcel to Planned Community." In reference to Jamboree Boulevard, Mr. Lenard explained that the Building Department and the Public Works Department are involved with the installation of grease interceptors. He suggested that the following language be included in the requirement for the grease interceptor condition within the Fashion Island Planned Community text, "subject to the Building Department and the Public Works Department approval." • Ms. Temple recommended that the mitigation measure regarding bikeways within Newport Center/Fashion Island -34- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 8, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX be reworded to include in the EIR, bikeways at San Nicholas Drive and Center Drive. Ms. Temple explained that the mitigation measure did not acknowledge bike trails that currently exist which would include Center Drive and San Nicholas Drive. Don Webb, City Engineer, stepped down to the exhibit area, and explained the section on Jamboree Road, near the intersection at Santa Barbara Drive, that will be widened from two lanes to three lanes to complete the widening of Jamboree Road. He said that the condition states that The Irvine Company participate in 50 percent of the completion of those improvements. Motion x Motion was made to Adopt Resolution No. 1162, General Plan Amendment 87 -1(C) and the acceptance of an environmental document including the aforementioned Conditions No. 3 and amended No. 4, and the modified bike trail mitigation measure; to Adopt Resolution No. 1163, General Plan Consistency Determination; Amendment • No. 632 subject to the Findings and change stating that grease interceptors shall be approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department; Adopt Resolution No. 1164, Amendment No. 653; and Traffic Study subject to the Findings and Condition. Chairman Person stated that he would support the motion. He stated that the Fashion Island expansion has had previous support from Council members who had opposed the Newport Center expansion, that the community outreach program has supported Fashion Island expansion, that the residents and businesses would benefit by the expansion, that the expansion would increase the tax dollars, and he concurred with the testimony during the public hearing regarding the traffic. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Webb explained that the asphalt curb and walk on Jamboree Boulevard are a part of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Commissioner Debay stated that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance has resulted in 23 major circulation system improvements at 19 intersections, and has acted to implement correlation between the land use and • circulation elements. She said that there are 14 additional improvements conditioned on projects approved but not yet constructed. -35- COMMISSIONERS y to 00 10,019 9A xwoy9cc �o vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would support the motion. He commented that the concerns of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Associations regarding General Plan Amendment- 85 -1(B) were almost all directed to other elements other than improvements at Newport Center. Commissioner Pomeroy explained that the expansion would not increase the traffic during peak traffic hours. Motion was voted on to adopt the previously stated ALL AYES motion, MOTION CARRIED. A. General Plan Amendment 87 -1(C) (Resolution No. 1162) 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, The Irvine _ Company shall provide the City with a letter, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney and the Planning Department, agreeing that the additional development approved in this action relative to Fashion Island will be included in the consideration of the appropriate • distribution of the cost of construction of MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. 4. Occupancy permits for the development entitled by this General Plan Amendment and the related Finding of General Plan Consistency for the transfer of theater seats within Newport Center shall not be issued until The Irvine Company submits a letter agreeing to the approval of redistricting to the P -C (Planned Community)' district and adoption of Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan for Block 300. This zoning text shall reflect the development entitled to the block in the Newport Beach General Plan. Revised Mitigation: The project proponent has provided dual use pedestrian/bikeways at San Nicholas Drive and Center Drive and shall maintain these dual use facilities. The project proponent shall also fund and. be responsible for construction and maintenance of bikeways leading into Fashion Island and commencing at the Newport Center Drive • ring road: Santa Barbara Drive and one at either Newport Center Drive or San Miguel. Drive.- The _ -36- COMMISSIONERS vy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX bikeways are subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer and shall be completed prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits for the commercial development enabled by this General Plan Amendment. Amendment No. 632: Findings: 1. That the Fashion Island Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That adoption of the Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan are necessary to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Amended Provision: That the installation of grease interceptors within Fashion Island shall be approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. TRAFFIC STUDY: Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy S -1. 2. That the traffic study indicates that traffic will be greater than one percent (1B) of the existing traffic during the 2 -1/2 hour peak period at several intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at one critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization greater than 0.90. 3. That the study has identified an improvement which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level below 0.90 at the critical intersection. _37- COMMISSIONERS y�G t^ �,9y � �y -4 y Ir* << `9y . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX 4. That with the circulation system improvement; the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major ", "primary- modified" or "primary" street. Condition: 1. That prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the development enabled by General Plan Amendment 87 -1(C) , the General Plan Consistency Determination for Fashion Island theater seats and Amendment No. 632, a third southbound through lane shall be constructed at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer and the Public Works Department. • • x General Plan Amendment No. 87- 3.(Discussion) Item No.9. Request to consider amendments to the Newport Beach GPA87 -3 General Plan for the following sites: (a) Pacific Telephone Site (North Ford) - a request of SDC Develop- Recommended ment to change the land use designation from "Institu- tional" to "Retail and Service Commercial" and increase the allowable development so as to construct a 33,550 sq.ft. retail center; and (b) First American Trust Building (Block 500, Newport Center) - a request of First American Trust Company to expand an existing office building in Newport Center by 560 sq.ft. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion x Commissioner Winburn made a motion to recommend to the City Council that all or a portion of the request for General Plan Amendments be initiated and the staff be directed to set the amendments for public hearing before the Planning Commission after preparation of any necessary environmental documents; however, the amendments shall be initiated by staff as time allows inasmuch as staff's primary responsibility shall be to pursue GPA 87 -1(A) Land Use Element Update; GPA 87 -1(B) _ Noise Element- Update; and GPA 87 -1(E) Circulation All Ayes Element Update. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -38- COMMISSIONERS A i^�tc��,oam yd�99"xo9 9,y - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES October 8, 1987 ROL CALL INDEX ADDITIONAL BUS I N E S S: Additional Business Motion x Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner All Ayes Koppelman and Commissioner Pomeroy from the October 22, Excused 1987, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. r • x The Commission directed staff to prepare a zone change amendment from R -4 to R -2 between 15th Street and 20th Zone Change Street on the ocean front for the November 5, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. x • • The Commission discussed the desirability of the recent changes to the Ordinance that no longer requires a use permit or submittal of plans in conjunction with condominium developments. Staff responded that the Discussion reason there was confusion regarding Resubdivision No. regarding 853 was that the application should have included- a Condo UP modification which would have included plans; however, the applicant insisted on bringing the resubdivision application before the Commission without the required modification. The Commission directed staff to include the issue as a Discussion Item for the November 5; 1987, Planning Commission meeting. • � x The Commission discussed the desirability of adopting an Ordinance to require earthquake safety shutoff valves for gas lines. Staff was directed to report Earthquake back to the Commission as a Discussion Item on October- Safety 22, 1987, as to how this may be accomplished. ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m. - - Adjournment JAN DEBAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION - -39-