Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/1985COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers x " F TIME: 7:30 P.M. c o I a M 'v m DATE: October 10, 1985 Z C m a m Z i z o z A Y m m City of Newport Beach C z w v S O o Present 11 xlx)xlxIx rl All Commissioners Present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, City Attorney rasa STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator W. William Ward, Senior Planner Donald Webb, City Engineer Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x a • Minutes of September 19, 1985: Motion N Motion was made for approval of the September 19, 1985, Ayes x N x x x x Planning Commission Minutes, which MOTION CARRIED. Abstain x A. General Plan Amendment 85 -1 (c) (Continued Public Hearing) Consideration of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to redesignate a portion of the subject property from "Low Density Residential" to a combined designation of "Administra- tive, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Retail and Service Commercial ", and the acceptance of an environmental document. M1 B. Amendment No. 7 to the Local Coastal Program (Continued Public Hearing) Consideration of an amendment to the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, so as to redesignate a portion of the property from "Low Density Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial ". MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS October 10, 1985 MINUTES x R C o 1 M c v m z c m s m z z a= m> T m City of Newport Beach c z N p; o o � = a ROLL CALL INDEX AND C. Amendment No. 620 (Continued Public Hearing) Denied Request to amend a portion of- District Nap No. 18 so as to reclassify certain property from the R -1 District to the C -1 District. Q11 D. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study so as to permit the construction of an 80 unit senior congregate living facility in the R -1 (proposed to be rezoned to C -1) and the C -1 Districts. E. Use Permit No. 3155 (Continued Public Hearing) • Request to permit the construction of an 80 unit senior congregate living facility on property located in the R -1 (proposed to be rezoned to C -1) and the C -1 Dist- ricts. The proposal also includes: a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the basic height limit in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off - street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full -time valet parking service. LOCATION: Lots 58 -67 and a portion of Lot 68, Block A, Tract No. 673, located at 3901 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, in Corona del mar. ZONES: R -1 and C -1 APPLICANT: S.J.S. Development Corporation, Beverly Hi OWNER: A.T. Leo's, Ltd., Irvine • ( I I I I I I James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented on the September 9, 1985, petition signed by 32 residents residing on Hazel Street and Poppy Street opposing the -2- COMMISSIONERS 7 x n F a v = r a r v m z c m y m z W a D z r 0 r CZ 2 W O L o 0 a m O m a r l 2 L 2 9 2 T m October 10, 1985 GtV Of proposed project, and 1985, representing 60 convalescent hospital. proposed project does hospital. MINUTES t Beach INDEX the petition dated October 10, residents opposing a proposed Mr. Hewicker stated that the not include a convalescent Patricia Temple, advised Chairman Person that staff has prepared floor area ratio information based on the entire site size and the buildable area of the site. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Earl Sherman, 602 North Maple, Beverly Hills, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sherman described the proposed project, and he advised that the redesign as requested by the Planning Commission at the August 22, 1985, meeting includes a modification to the previous design relating to the view corridor adjacent to Buck Gully, public safety access, and lessening of the visual bulk of the easterly wing of the building. Mr. Sherman • stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions for approval in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Ron Yeo, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Yeo described the redesign of the proposed project adjacent to Buck Gully to expand the visual corridor, and he stated that the proposed facility's traffic would be less than the site currently generates by the existing development. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Yeo described the proposed basement area, and he stated that the dwelling units in the basement area will be two bedroom units with patios, and that there will be a slight slope to the second level parking area. Mr. Walter Zigler, 327 Poppy Street, appeared before the Planning Commission opposing the proposed project. He referred to the petition that he submitted on September 9, 1985, and stated that he only found one resident on Poppy Street or Hazel Street that was in favor of the project. Mr. Zigler compared the proposed project's number of units and number of parking spaces to the nine hotels listed in the staff report by • stating that seven of the hotels consist of one bedroom units and two of the hotels have a minimal number of two bedroom units. He stated that Crown House requires -3- October 10, 1985 MINUTES a .48 parking ratio for 77 two bedroom . units or 154 units parking ratio, which he stated is a lower parking ratio than the aforementioned comparable hotels. Mr. Zigler stated that the .48 parking ratio does not include employee or guest parking, and that there is virtually no off - street parking in the surrounding area because of the beach parking and Five Crown Restaurant employee parking on Poppy Street and Hazel Street. He further stated that the proposed structure would be too dense for the low- profile community. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Zigler replied that he did not inquire how many of the parking spaces were not being utilized at the aforementioned hotels, whereby Commissioner Turner referred to the number of hotel unused parking spaces as stated in the staff report. Mr. Zigler commented that he was informed by the Mesa Verde Senior Citizen Home that one -half car space is provided per room for guests. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Roppelman, Mr.Zigler replied that the Mesa Verde Senior Citizen Home has 40 parking spaces for 40 rooms, 2 beds per room, and that there are 10 units of 2 bedrooms each in an adjacent building that has a small parking lot. He opined that there is ample off - street parking in the Mesa Verde Senior Citizen Home area. Dr. Paul R. Johnson, 1425 Santanella Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed project. Dr. Johnson complimented the applicants on a well designed project and a project that is needed in the community; however, he strongly emphasized that because many of the residents of the facility may not be ambulatory and who are elderly, he was concerned about their safety and that they should be protected from any possible danger related to traffic on East Coast Highway. In response to Commissioner Winburn, Dr. Johnson confirmed that the proposed project is similar to the personal care facility at Regents Point, Irvine, and Villa Valencia, Laguna Hills, and that the average resident's age will be 75 years old to 80 years old. He • cited that because many of the residents will not be driving that he has no problem with the number of proposed parking spaces. Commissioner Winburn informed mc F a c o A E m 9 v c z c m s m = � r M = 9 = City of Newport Beach a .48 parking ratio for 77 two bedroom . units or 154 units parking ratio, which he stated is a lower parking ratio than the aforementioned comparable hotels. Mr. Zigler stated that the .48 parking ratio does not include employee or guest parking, and that there is virtually no off - street parking in the surrounding area because of the beach parking and Five Crown Restaurant employee parking on Poppy Street and Hazel Street. He further stated that the proposed structure would be too dense for the low- profile community. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Zigler replied that he did not inquire how many of the parking spaces were not being utilized at the aforementioned hotels, whereby Commissioner Turner referred to the number of hotel unused parking spaces as stated in the staff report. Mr. Zigler commented that he was informed by the Mesa Verde Senior Citizen Home that one -half car space is provided per room for guests. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Roppelman, Mr.Zigler replied that the Mesa Verde Senior Citizen Home has 40 parking spaces for 40 rooms, 2 beds per room, and that there are 10 units of 2 bedrooms each in an adjacent building that has a small parking lot. He opined that there is ample off - street parking in the Mesa Verde Senior Citizen Home area. Dr. Paul R. Johnson, 1425 Santanella Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed project. Dr. Johnson complimented the applicants on a well designed project and a project that is needed in the community; however, he strongly emphasized that because many of the residents of the facility may not be ambulatory and who are elderly, he was concerned about their safety and that they should be protected from any possible danger related to traffic on East Coast Highway. In response to Commissioner Winburn, Dr. Johnson confirmed that the proposed project is similar to the personal care facility at Regents Point, Irvine, and Villa Valencia, Laguna Hills, and that the average resident's age will be 75 years old to 80 years old. He • cited that because many of the residents will not be driving that he has no problem with the number of proposed parking spaces. Commissioner Winburn informed mc COMMISSIONERS October 10, 1985 MINUTES Dr. Johnson that the Planning Commission is aware of the dangers to the residents exiting. and entering East Coast Highway. Dr. Johnson opined that there is no solution to the danger problem. Commissioner Turner asked the applicant or staff to advise the number of employees anticipated to be on site at one time and the physical capabilities of the individuals involved. He stated that he was of the opinion that the residents would not have advanced stages of physical disabilities. 7 F Mr. Dick Nichols appeared before the Planning C Commission on behalf of the Corona del Mar Community f 9 = Association whereby he referred to a letter by the a m Association supporting the proposed project because of z c C M m a m Z the project's design, and the neighbors were in favor C Z M a 0 = p; = p * o City of Newport Beach 9 m aforementioned petitions that the Association's support Dr. Johnson that the Planning Commission is aware of the dangers to the residents exiting. and entering East Coast Highway. Dr. Johnson opined that there is no solution to the danger problem. Commissioner Turner asked the applicant or staff to advise the number of employees anticipated to be on site at one time and the physical capabilities of the individuals involved. He stated that he was of the opinion that the residents would not have advanced stages of physical disabilities. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Nichols stated that the Corona del Mar Community Association has extensively reviewed and voted on the project, and that he is the swing vote. He commented that prior to the aforementioned petitions opposing the project that the Association Board had only seen petitions that were in favor of the project. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff has recommended that the site be zoned as a Planned Community District, and that a use permit would govern the project operating on that site. He explained that if the proposed project does not succeed than each successor on that site would need to operate within the conditions of a use permit. Mr. Hewicker stated that his personal research on similar Lutheran Church senior housing is that the average • entry level age for a man and wife is 78 years old living in a two bedroom, two bath unit, and each individual enjoys a separate bedroom and bath. He -5- Mr. Dick Nichols appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Corona del Mar Community Association whereby he referred to a letter by the Association supporting the proposed project because of the project's design, and the neighbors were in favor of the project. Be cited that because of the aforementioned petitions that the Association's support could be swayed and turned around. He commented on • several concerns of the Association: that each bedroom has a separate access to the living area and a totally independent person could reside there including a nurse who is a mobile person; that there could be engineering problems because of the excavation of bedrock and the possibility of sand; and how the proposed project could be maintained as an elderly facility and not as a singles project if the facility should bankrupt. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Nichols stated that the Corona del Mar Community Association has extensively reviewed and voted on the project, and that he is the swing vote. He commented that prior to the aforementioned petitions opposing the project that the Association Board had only seen petitions that were in favor of the project. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff has recommended that the site be zoned as a Planned Community District, and that a use permit would govern the project operating on that site. He explained that if the proposed project does not succeed than each successor on that site would need to operate within the conditions of a use permit. Mr. Hewicker stated that his personal research on similar Lutheran Church senior housing is that the average • entry level age for a man and wife is 78 years old living in a two bedroom, two bath unit, and each individual enjoys a separate bedroom and bath. He -5- MMISSIONERS October 10, 1985 A x C o f1 _ a > v C m z C m s m z z m z A= T m l City of Newport Beach C Z H o S o o cited that the Luthern housing facilities plan includes 1/2 parking space per dwelling unit which includes employees and guests. Mr. Ron Yeo reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Yeo stated that the applicants have projected 14 day employees who will be driving an automobile, 6 night employees who will be driving an automobile, and 12 housekeeping employees who will probably not have an automobile but who will utilize public transportation. He opined that after the residents become accustomed to other conveniences offered by the facility that fewer MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Koppelman asked -Mr. Webb if the traffic staff has developed a mitigation access on East Coast Highway and a U -turn on Seaward Road? Mr. Webb cited that records over the past four years have shown that only one accident may have been related to a U -turn, and that. there are no records of accidents coming out of the driveway of the previous restaurants that have operated on the subject site. He said that because of past records that the area is not considered a high danger area, and that the normal standard used by the City and Cal -Trans to allow U -turns is barely met. Mr. Webb commented further that the City is hesitant about restricting U -turns in advance of seeing the problem occur because of the routing to the businesses across East Coast Highway from the proposed project. He said that the City has not ruled out prohibiting U -turns at • Seaward Road and allow U -turns at the traffic signal at Morning Canyon; or to make more room for a U -turn at Seaward Road by prohibiting parking on the southerly side of East Coast Highway and shifting the striping slightly. Commissioner Koppelman and Mr. Webb discussed the traffic pattern options on East Coast Highway at Seaward Road. In reply to Commissioner Turner's inquiry regarding future definitive traffic recommendations, Mr. Webb stated that the problem is a subjective situation, and that the City would have to rely heavily on an in -house educational program for the residents. Commissioner Koppelman inquired about the long traffic signal at Morning Canyon Road, and Mr. Webb stated that the State of California has set the traffic lights for a continuous flow of traffic on East Coast Highway; however, if the State received a reasonable request to change the traffic lights on Morning Canyon Road then the timing could be corrected in a short period of time. Mr. Ron Yeo reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Yeo stated that the applicants have projected 14 day employees who will be driving an automobile, 6 night employees who will be driving an automobile, and 12 housekeeping employees who will probably not have an automobile but who will utilize public transportation. He opined that after the residents become accustomed to other conveniences offered by the facility that fewer MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS October 10, 1985 X C o x _ C T v °y Z C D T Z z Z p= M= T m I City of Newport Beach a z m p i 0 0 occupants will drive their own automobiles. Mr. Yeo said that the applicants are willing to cooperate. with any finding that would make the area safer for the residents. Mr. Yeo advised that the three bedroom units were omitted in the projects redesign. He stated that the applicants did not canvas Poppy Street with a petition because they did not feel that the area would be impacted by the facility. Commissioner Goff discussed with Mr. Yeo and Mr. Webb the feasibility of egress on Hazel Street and ingress on East Coast Highway. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Eichenhofer advised that she has listened to the August 22, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting tape and she has read the minutes relating to the subject application. Commissioner Turner commented that because the proposed project would create less traffic than other operations • that would be developed on the subject property, that there have been noise problems on the site from previous restaurant operations, that senior citizens have expressed a need for senior. citizen housing, and Motion x that the proposed parking is adequate, he made a motion to approve General Plan Amendment 85 -1(C), Amendment No. 7 to the Local Coastal Program, Amendment No. 620, Traffic Study, and Use Permit No. 3155. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she has studied the traffic impact in the area since the August 22, 1985, Planning Commission meeting and is concerned with the egress out of the project and the dangers to the senior citizens. She said that the 1.74 floor area ratio is higher than any structure approved in the area and would have desired the project to be cut down to 1.25 times buildable area. Commissioner Koppelman made a Substitut substitute motion to approve General Plan Amendment Motion x 85 -1(C), Amendment No. 7 to the Local Coastal Program, Amendment No. 620, Traffic Study, and Use Permit No. 3155 that would limit the floor area ratio of 1.25 times buildable area of the site. Ms. Temple advised that based on the standard Zoning Code definition of "buildable area" and the • calculations of the building, that the building is 1.27 times buildable area. She stated that 1.74 times -7- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS October 10, 1985 MINUTES buildable area referred to was deleting certain portions of the site which were in the slope area, and that Commissioner Koppelman needed to clarify what to delete from that specific calculation. Ms. Temple explained that 1.27 times buildable area as defined in the Zoning Code is different from buildable acreage in the General Plan and she clarified that difference to Commissioner Koppelman. Chairman Person clarified the motion by reducing the floor area ratio 1.27 times buildable area to 1.00 times buildable area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner winburn, Ms. Temple advised that the difference between 1.25 times the flat area of the site or 1.00 times full size of the site is 13,000 square feet. Commissioner Koppelman clarified her motion by stating the building area would be 1.00 times the total site. Substitute Chairman Person made a substitute substitute motion Substitute based on the size and bulk of the project, traffic Motion x problems and the concerns of the surrounding residents, • to deny General Plan Amendment 85 -1(C), Amendment No. 7 to the Local Coastal Program, Amendment No. 620, Traffic Study, and Use Permit No. 3155, subject..to the findings for denial as set forth in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" of the staff report of August 22, 1985. Commissioner Turner asked Chairman Person if he would consider a redesign of the project? Chairman Person replied that the applicant has come back with a redesign and the applicant did not go far enough as suggested at the August 22, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting and there is still a difficulty with the mass and the traffic on East Coast Highway. Chairman Person commented that there has been concern among several of the Commissioners that if the project is approved that the City could possibly be held liable for the safety of the residents on East Coast Highway, and based on that scenario he would not approve continuance of the project. Commissioner Koppelman advised that she would withdraw her substitute motion after hearing the reasons of the substitute substitute motion, and she would support the substitute substitute motion. • 11111111 City Attorney Burnham stated that the Planning Commission and the City would not be liable for any facet of the proposed project. -8- X s c O i f a y V 9 m c z w p T o T o MM = M = City of Newport Beach m buildable area referred to was deleting certain portions of the site which were in the slope area, and that Commissioner Koppelman needed to clarify what to delete from that specific calculation. Ms. Temple explained that 1.27 times buildable area as defined in the Zoning Code is different from buildable acreage in the General Plan and she clarified that difference to Commissioner Koppelman. Chairman Person clarified the motion by reducing the floor area ratio 1.27 times buildable area to 1.00 times buildable area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner winburn, Ms. Temple advised that the difference between 1.25 times the flat area of the site or 1.00 times full size of the site is 13,000 square feet. Commissioner Koppelman clarified her motion by stating the building area would be 1.00 times the total site. Substitute Chairman Person made a substitute substitute motion Substitute based on the size and bulk of the project, traffic Motion x problems and the concerns of the surrounding residents, • to deny General Plan Amendment 85 -1(C), Amendment No. 7 to the Local Coastal Program, Amendment No. 620, Traffic Study, and Use Permit No. 3155, subject..to the findings for denial as set forth in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" of the staff report of August 22, 1985. Commissioner Turner asked Chairman Person if he would consider a redesign of the project? Chairman Person replied that the applicant has come back with a redesign and the applicant did not go far enough as suggested at the August 22, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting and there is still a difficulty with the mass and the traffic on East Coast Highway. Chairman Person commented that there has been concern among several of the Commissioners that if the project is approved that the City could possibly be held liable for the safety of the residents on East Coast Highway, and based on that scenario he would not approve continuance of the project. Commissioner Koppelman advised that she would withdraw her substitute motion after hearing the reasons of the substitute substitute motion, and she would support the substitute substitute motion. • 11111111 City Attorney Burnham stated that the Planning Commission and the City would not be liable for any facet of the proposed project. -8- COMMISSIONERS 7 x n i z v = H 9 r v m z c m y m z W Z r C 8 z 0 N O> O O 0 0 ' S m m D m 2 9 z = y= M m m October 10, 1985 Of MINUTES Beach INDEX Ayes x x x x x The substitute motion to deny General Plan Amendment Noes x > No. 85 -1(C) , Amendment No. 7 to the Local Coastal Program, Amendment No. 620, Traffic Study, and Use Permit No. 3155, subject to the findings in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" of the original staff report was voted on, and MOTION CARRIED. A. General Plan Amendment 85 -1(C) Findings: 1. The proposed use does not necessitate approval of a General Plan Amendment. 2. Approval of a commercial land use designation may enable development of a land use which is incom- patible with the existing residential neighbor- hood. • 11111111 BLocal Coastal Program Amendment No. 7 Findings: 1. The proposed use does not necessitate approval of a Local Coastal Program Amendment. 2. Approval of a commercial land use designation may enable development of a land use which is incom- patible with the existing residential neighbor- hood. C. Amendment No. 620 Finding: 1. The requested Amendment is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and Certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. D. Traffic Study 11111111 Finding: 1. A Traffic Study is not required for projects which • are denied. -10- October 10, 1985 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES x C o c m 'm z a z M z A a T m City of Newport Beach a ROLL CALL INDEX E. Use Permit No. 3155 Findings: 1. The project will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use and detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City in that the structure exceeds both the basic and use permit height limit, does not provide adequate emergency access and blocks public views from East Coast Highway. 2. The structure will be visually imposing and out of scale with the surrounding community. 3. Environmental Documents are not required for projects which are denied. • * x x The Planning Commission recessed at 8 :55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Final Map of Tract No. 12245 (Discussion) Item No.2 Request.to approve the Final Map of Tract No. 12245, Final Map subdividing 9.604 acres of land into 47 numbered lots of Tract for single family attached residential development; one No.12245 numbered lot for private recreational purposes; one numbered lot for public park purposes; and three Approved lettered lots for private street purposes. Condition- ally LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 93 and 96, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 875 Marguerite Avenue on the southwesterly corner of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive, adjacent to Harbor View Hills. ZONE: P -C • APPLICANT: LDM Development, Inc., Laguna Hills -10- COMMISSIONERS October 10, 1985 MINUTES �o - y S S 9 r m 2 c m a m = C p z == r m City of Newport Beach = N o K 0 0 a LL INDEX OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: VTN Consolidated, Irvine Mr. Forrest Dickerson representing LDM Development, Inc., appeared before the Planning Commission stating that the applicant concurs with the finding and condition for approval in Exhibit "A ". Motion x Motion was made to approve the Final Map of Tract No. Ayes x x x x x x 12245 subject to the finding and condition for approval in Exhibit "A ". Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDING: 1. That the proposed Final Map substantially conforms with the Tentative Map and with all changes permitted and all requirements imposed as condi- tions to its acceptance. CONDITION: 1. That all remaining conditions imposed by the City Council on April 8, 1985 in conjunction with the approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12245 shall be fulfilled. � • x Final Map of Tract No. 12309 (Discussion) I Item No.3 Request to approve the Final Map of Tract No. 12309, Final Map subdividing 125.88 acres of land so as to create one of Tract lot for office development; one lot for single family No. 12309 detached residential development; four lots for resi- dential condominium development; two lots for residen- Approved tial apartment development; one lot for retail commer- Condition - cial development, and one lot for public park purposes. ally LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 51 and 57, Irvine's Subdivision, located on property bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Bison Avenue, Camelback Street, Jamboree Road and San Diego Creek, in the North Ford Planned Community. 0 11111111 ZONE: P-C -11- COMMISSIONERS X C o F a 9 z - o a m Z C c m a m = C z N o r o o W m a m a T m p October 10, 1985 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Adams, Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc., Irvine Mr. James Ko, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission stating that the applicant concurs with the finding and condition for approval in Exhibit "A ". Motion Motion was made to approve the Final Map of Tract No. Ayes x x x x 12309 subject to the finding and condition for approval in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDING: 1. That the proposed Final Map substantially conforms with the Tentative Map and with all changes permitted and all requirements imposed as condi- tions to its acceptance. CONDITION: 1. That all remaining conditions imposed by the City Council on March 25, 1985 in conjunction with the approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12309 shall be fulfilled. Use Permit No. 1905 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the expansion of an existing restaurant (George's Camelot) so as to create an outdoor eating area. The proposed amendment is to allow the enclosure of the previously approved outdoor dining area. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 59 -17 (Resub- division No. 416), located at 3420 Via Oporto, on the northeasterly side of Via Oporto, between Central Avenue and Via Lido, in Lido Marina Village. -12- MINUTES INDEX Item No.4 Use Permit No. 1905 (Amended) Approved Condition- ally CONWISSIONERSI October 10, 1985 MINUTES Of ZONE: C -1 -H Beach INDEX APPLICANT: George's Camelot, Newport Beach OWNER: Traweek Investment Fund No. 12, Newport Beach xx C o 0 The public hearing was opened at this time, and Mr. x m 2 C m y m m z Z r o x C Z N p 3 0 0 9 m O m D r 2 9 Z y Z M T m Of ZONE: C -1 -H Beach INDEX APPLICANT: George's Camelot, Newport Beach OWNER: Traweek Investment Fund No. 12, Newport Beach Motion x x JxJ The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was Ayes x x x made to approve Use Permit No. 1905 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions for approval in Exhibit "A ". Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed restaurant will not have any signifi- cant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. I I ( f I ( I 4. The approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. I 1905 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, -13- The public hearing was opened at this time, and Mr. George Ristich, 601 Promontory Point, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ristich stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions for approval in Exhibit "A ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Ristich stated that the restaurant's patio area will be enclosed, and the boardwalk in front of the restaurant will remain as an outdoor dining area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Ristich commented that if the customer requests to sit at a table on the boardwalk then the restaurant will set up the table setting, and after the customer leaves the waiter will • clear the table. Chairman Person referred Mr. Ristich to Condition No. 8 stating that the Planning Commission may bring the application back for review if there are any problems. Motion x x JxJ The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was Ayes x x x made to approve Use Permit No. 1905 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions for approval in Exhibit "A ". Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed restaurant will not have any signifi- cant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. I I ( f I ( I 4. The approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. I 1905 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, -13- ROLL October 10, 1985 MINUTES morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved floor plan, and elevations except as noted below. , 2. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. X 3. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance C 0 0 with Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. �L V = 4. That the new enclosure is to be protected by a 9 r v m fire sprinkler system. C z c m s m z �zWorool 9= T MM M m City v f Newport p Beach z morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved floor plan, and elevations except as noted below. , 2. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 5. That bathrooms meet standards for handicapped persons. 6. That all windows within ten feet of the existing exterior stairway to the south be permanently fixed and wire- reinforced and that any door within ten feet of the stairway be one hour fire rated. 7. That all previous applicable conditions of Use Permit No. 1905 and the previously approved Use Permit No. 1905 (Amended) shall be maintained. S. 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. 9. 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. * x -14- 3. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. That the new enclosure is to be protected by a fire sprinkler system. 5. That bathrooms meet standards for handicapped persons. 6. That all windows within ten feet of the existing exterior stairway to the south be permanently fixed and wire- reinforced and that any door within ten feet of the stairway be one hour fire rated. 7. That all previous applicable conditions of Use Permit No. 1905 and the previously approved Use Permit No. 1905 (Amended) shall be maintained. S. 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. 9. 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. * x -14- COMMISSIONERS F F C O n F a v = 1 y r s m Z c m a m = m a a z r 0 a °mi COMMISSIONERS F F c o � x - v > m C z c m y m z c z 0 p r 0 0 W 21 is I X 9 p October 10, 1985 City of Newport Beach ROLL CAII Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3.169 subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ", including amended Condition No. 2. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use 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 environ- mental impact. 3. Adequate parking is provided on -site in conjunc- tion with the proposed development. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3169 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 to allow a portion of the proposed building to encroach 11 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback, adjacent to Newport Boulevard is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That this use permit shall be granted for a period of 3 years. 3. At such time as the applicant's use of the tempo- rary building ceases or the use permit expires, • which ever happens first, the building shall be removed from the site, and the property shall be restored to its present condition. -16- MINUTES INDEX October 10, 1985 4. 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. 5. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval of 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. MINUTES x F Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow the Item No.6 Traffic Ma f construction of a 55,000 sq.ft. office building, and the acceptance of an environmental document. A y Approved m C z c m a m LOCATION: Lots No.. 13 -16, Tract No. 3201, z MZ C p 0 = o >ool M � m City v f Newport P Beach _ the southeasterly side of Campus Drive, 4. 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. 5. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval of 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. MINUTES -17- Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow the Item No.6 Traffic • construction of a 55,000 sq.ft. office building, and the acceptance of an environmental document. Study Approved LOCATION: Lots No.. 13 -16, Tract No. 3201, Condition- located at 3952 -4020 Campus Drive, on ally the southeasterly side of Campus Drive, between Dove Street and Quail Street, across from the John Wayne Airport. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Pacesetter Homes, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened at this time, and Mr. Steve Strauss, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Strauss stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Patricia Temple advised that the proposed 55,000 square foot office building is equivalent to the 0.5 floor area ratio allowed in General Plan Amendment 81 -2, and the Traffic Study is the only discretionary action that is required of the project. • The hearing was closed at this time. public Motion Motion was made to approve the findings for approval of Ayes x x x x x x x the Environmental Document and Traffic Study in Exhibit "A ". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -17- COMMISSIONERS actober 10, 1985 MINUTES Of Beach A. Environmental Document Findings: 1. That an Initial Study ,and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the de- cisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce poten- tially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant en- vironmental impacts. X c o Mitigation Measures: A 9 x v r v m z c m y m z m A A Z r x C Z m o i COMMISSONNERSI October 10, 1985 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary- modified,' or 'primary' street. A. General Plan Consistency Determination (Discussion) Request to consider a transfer of allowed retail development from Newport Village and Civic Plaza to Fashion Island within Newport Center as permitted by General Plan Amendment No. 78 -2. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) • j I I I I Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow Ii construction of 66,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses in Fashion Island, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Various locations within Tract No. 6015 known as Fashion Island, within Newport Center. ZONE: C -0 -H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company OWNER: Same as applicant x x In response to questions posed by Commissioner o iC Koppelman regarding the mitigation measure of a F x northbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at San y 9 9 m Joaquin Hills Road, Mr. Webb replied that MacArthur z c m o m z Boulevard northbound has two lanes of traffic and a c z Z ti o r 0 0 single left turn lane. He said that in order to add a M M a I City of Newport Beach T applicant that it will be necessary to widen the road 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary- modified,' or 'primary' street. A. General Plan Consistency Determination (Discussion) Request to consider a transfer of allowed retail development from Newport Village and Civic Plaza to Fashion Island within Newport Center as permitted by General Plan Amendment No. 78 -2. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) • j I I I I Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow Ii construction of 66,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses in Fashion Island, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Various locations within Tract No. 6015 known as Fashion Island, within Newport Center. ZONE: C -0 -H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company OWNER: Same as applicant MINUTES INDEX Item No.7 General Plan Consistency Determina- tion Traffic Study Approved In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the mitigation measure of a northbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, Mr. Webb replied that MacArthur Boulevard northbound has two lanes of traffic and a single left turn lane. He said that in order to add a third northbound lane the City has indicated to the applicant that it will be necessary to widen the road on the westerly side and to move the median islands over. Mr. Webb commented that a final determination regarding the intersection will be in accordance with • the results of the Newport Center General Plan. He said that the MacArthur Boulevard widening will be from 600 feet to 1,000 feet going into the San Joaquin Hills Road intersection to about 1,000 feet going out of the -19- MINUTES INDEX Item No.7 General Plan Consistency Determina- tion Traffic Study Approved October 10, 1985 MINUTES x c 0 o � F y v a v i s M Z m= T m City of Newport Beach c z m o; 0 0 BOLL CALL intersection. In reply to Commissioner Koppelman's question regarding the Circulation Element Master Plan, Mr. Webb stated that The Irvine Company has requested an amendment to the Circulation Element which would eliminate the one -way couplet concept and would continue two -way traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. In response to Chairman Person's inquiry stating that the application is a request to transfer existing development rights within Newport Center from one location to another, Mr. Hewicker replied that this is permitted by General Plan amendment No. 78 -2 which allows the City to approve such a transfer if a finding can be made that it is not going to result in any adverse traffic. Mr. Hewicker confirmed that if approved, Chairman Person's statement that there would be no development rights relating to commercial or retail left on the Newport Village site and only residential, would be correct. • Chairman Person recommended that Condition No.. 1 of the General Plan Consistency Determination be modified to read: "Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall execute an agreement, etc. ". Mr. Burnham suggested that the Condition be amended to state that the property owner would, in that agreement, acknowledge that they would have no claim or right to compensations assuming there are no additional development rights granted on the property from which the development rights have been transferred and any other language necessary in that agreement to protect the City against some future liability and also a provision that the agreement be recorded. Mr. Dave Dmohowski stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions of approval, as amended. -20- Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichols and Mr. Webb discussed the proposed design of the San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard intersection. Chairman Person explained to Mr. Nichols what the transfer of allowed retail development within Newport Village contains. Ms. Temple advised that The Irvine Company's request to transfer into Fashion Island is not • increasing the total build out of Fashion Island proposed in General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B). She -20- October 10, 1985 0 A. Environmental Document Findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the de- cisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce poten- tially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant en- vironmental impacts. -21- MINUTES C F n £ s v = v > m z c m> m z c z o S 0 0 z z T m S City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL said that if the General Plan Amendment is approved, the additional development in Fashion Island will be reduced by 66,000 square feet from 180,000 square feet to 114,000 square feet. Mr. Nichols opined that the traffic pattern should be discussed before the General Plan. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to approve the findings and conditions of the Environmental Document, General Plan Consistency, and Traffic Study including amended Condition No. B1. She cited that the reasons for this motion are that these development rights for this commercial have been granted to the applicant under General Plan Amendment No. 78 -2, and this request is only moving the right commercial rights from one location to another, and she opined that when the General Plan Amendment is reviewed on Newport Center that the applicant will be addressing traffic • considerations as the primary part of the General Plan Amendment. Ayes x x x x x Motion was voted on to approve the findings and conditions of General Plan Consistency Determination I I and Traffic Study, including Condition No. 1B as amended. MOTION CARRIED. 0 A. Environmental Document Findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the de- cisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce poten- tially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant en- vironmental impacts. -21- MINUTES October 10, 1985 Of Mitigation Measures MINUTES Beach INDEX 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations.' 9. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. • 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan). 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. • ( I I I I I I 8 The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. -22- z C c O O f a v x o r v m 2 c C T q m Z m a a Z r 41 x c z N o r O O M m o m a a Z a Z a= w m October 10, 1985 Of Mitigation Measures MINUTES Beach INDEX 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations.' 9. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. • 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan). 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. • ( I I I I I I 8 The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. -22- COMMISSIONERSI October 10, 1985 MINUTES 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 10. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be ap- proved by the Planning Department. 11. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. x x 12. That all buildings on the project site shall be C o � equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. v , v m 13. That all access to the buildings be approved by C zc m y,� z the Fire Department. cZ Z 9 N o >ool T m 14. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and City v f Newport p Beach z X Z the Fire and Public works Departments. 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 10. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be ap- proved by the Planning Department. 11. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 15. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 16. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of con- struction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K -5 and K -6. 17. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 18. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and is glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Elec- trical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. -23- 12. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 13. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 14. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public works Departments. 15. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 16. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of con- struction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K -5 and K -6. 17. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 18. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and is glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Elec- trical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. -23- October 10, 1985 z Beach B. General Plan Consistency - Commercial Development Transfer Findings: 1. That the transfer of commercial development rights is consistent with the intent of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That GPA 78 -2 specifically allowed transfer of commercial development within Newport Center subject to approval by the City. 3. That the transfer of commercial development will not adversely affect the traffic system. 4. That major intersections during critical peak periods are not adversely affected so long as the identified intersection improvement is made. J I I I I ( S. That the project meets the criteria of the City's 0 Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall execute and record an agreement, the form and content of which is acceptable to the Newport Beach City Attorney, acknowledging that the transfer of development rights approved results in commercially designated land with no development rights, and that this is acceptable to the property owner. The property owner shall also acknowledge that the City, in taking this action, does not prejudice its ability to take independent action on General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) based upon the merits of the proposal. Additionally, the property owner shall, in the agreement, acknowledge they have no claim or right to compensation if no additional development rights are granted for the property from which the development rights have been transferred. -24- MINUTES x a c o 0 x m z c C m a m z m 9 m Z r m = w o 3 0 a 0 z m i z a a z r m October 10, 1985 z Beach B. General Plan Consistency - Commercial Development Transfer Findings: 1. That the transfer of commercial development rights is consistent with the intent of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That GPA 78 -2 specifically allowed transfer of commercial development within Newport Center subject to approval by the City. 3. That the transfer of commercial development will not adversely affect the traffic system. 4. That major intersections during critical peak periods are not adversely affected so long as the identified intersection improvement is made. J I I I I ( S. That the project meets the criteria of the City's 0 Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall execute and record an agreement, the form and content of which is acceptable to the Newport Beach City Attorney, acknowledging that the transfer of development rights approved results in commercially designated land with no development rights, and that this is acceptable to the property owner. The property owner shall also acknowledge that the City, in taking this action, does not prejudice its ability to take independent action on General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) based upon the merits of the proposal. Additionally, the property owner shall, in the agreement, acknowledge they have no claim or right to compensation if no additional development rights are granted for the property from which the development rights have been transferred. -24- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS October lo, 1985 MINUTES • Of C. Traffic Study Findings: Beach 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect- generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of six critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at one critical inter- section which has an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the Traffic Study suggests a circulation system improvement which will improve the level of traffic service at the critical intersection. 4. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements 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 occupancy of the proposed project, the circulation system improvement contained in the Traffic Study, addition of a northbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, shall have been construct- ed. The required improvement may be modified if subsequent project approval requires modification thereto. The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. * • x -25- x x c o � x z c m y m z m 9 A z r x C 2 W O i o 0 0 a m p m a r Z a z .'9 z M 'q m • Of C. Traffic Study Findings: Beach 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect- generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of six critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at one critical inter- section which has an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the Traffic Study suggests a circulation system improvement which will improve the level of traffic service at the critical intersection. 4. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements 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 occupancy of the proposed project, the circulation system improvement contained in the Traffic Study, addition of a northbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, shall have been construct- ed. The required improvement may be modified if subsequent project approval requires modification thereto. The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. * • x -25- COMMISSIONERS I October 10, 1985 MINUTES Motion x Ayes I A axxx • • of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment No. 85 -3 (Discussion) Request to consider initiation of General Plan Amend- ments for the Pacific Mutual site in Newport Center and the Plaza de Cafes site in Koll Center Newport. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach INDEX Item No.8 General Plan Amendment No.85 -3 Mr. Bill Ficker, 522 W. Ocean Front, architect, Approved appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the proposed computer center. Mr. Ficker explained that the computer center is proposed within 9,500 square feet of basement area that is not currently being utilized. Motion was made to recommend that City Council initiate General Plan Amendment 85 -3. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 625 (Public Hearing) Request to consider amendments to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance) , and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that public notices have been mailed to all of the Community Associations within the City regarding the subject Public Hearing, and that the City has received responses from several of the Associations. The public hearing was opened at this time, Mr. Dave Dmohowski appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company, stating that The Irvine Company is in agreement with the recommended changes to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; however, he recommended that Section 15.40.050 (C) 1 regarding alternate trip generation rate be clarified as to what point in the process the City Council or Planning Commission would review or approve the alternate trip generation rate. In reference to 15.40.030 (iii) regarding the members eligible to vote, he stated that The Irvine Company recommends 5 /7ths or a simple majority, because there could be many reasons why a project may not receive a majority vote and the reasons could be unrelated to the traffic issue. -26- Item Nn-9 Amendment Nn_ 625 Approved X c o O _ v a y m C z c m y m z C Z F z r c= w v 3 o 0 o 0 M m o m a r T Z a z a z m m Motion x Ayes I A axxx • • of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment No. 85 -3 (Discussion) Request to consider initiation of General Plan Amend- ments for the Pacific Mutual site in Newport Center and the Plaza de Cafes site in Koll Center Newport. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach INDEX Item No.8 General Plan Amendment No.85 -3 Mr. Bill Ficker, 522 W. Ocean Front, architect, Approved appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the proposed computer center. Mr. Ficker explained that the computer center is proposed within 9,500 square feet of basement area that is not currently being utilized. Motion was made to recommend that City Council initiate General Plan Amendment 85 -3. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 625 (Public Hearing) Request to consider amendments to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance) , and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that public notices have been mailed to all of the Community Associations within the City regarding the subject Public Hearing, and that the City has received responses from several of the Associations. The public hearing was opened at this time, Mr. Dave Dmohowski appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company, stating that The Irvine Company is in agreement with the recommended changes to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; however, he recommended that Section 15.40.050 (C) 1 regarding alternate trip generation rate be clarified as to what point in the process the City Council or Planning Commission would review or approve the alternate trip generation rate. In reference to 15.40.030 (iii) regarding the members eligible to vote, he stated that The Irvine Company recommends 5 /7ths or a simple majority, because there could be many reasons why a project may not receive a majority vote and the reasons could be unrelated to the traffic issue. -26- Item Nn-9 Amendment Nn_ 625 Approved • COMMISSIONERS October lo, 1985 MINUTES C F c o � x Z c m y, z 10, z 9 z r m City of Newport Beach C z N O; O o 9 LL INDEX Mr. Hewicker advised that this amendment was requested by the City Council and initiated over one year ago as the result of concerns regarding the Gfeller project in Corona del Mar. He said that this proposal divides consideration of projects into periods up to five years and over five years. Mr. Dick Nichols appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichols commented that he is familiar with the.Traffic Phasing Ordinance as an individual but his understanding of the Ordinance is limited. Mr. Nichols opined that the purpose of the Ordinance is to protect Newport Beach from being overridden by traffic and that the proposed revisions will not do that, that an alternate mitigation may, be made in some other area that does not address the traffic in the area of concern. He further commented that if there is an override on a project then there should be a definite unanimous decision from the City Council, that these decisions are going to have to be made and they should be made. Mr. Nichols commented that the definition of what the Ordinance is and how it is analyzed should be made clear, and this entire area should have public discussion. Nr. Nichols opined that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance should be open for a public discussion; thereby Chairman Person and Mr. Hewicker explained to Mr. Nichols that all of the Community Associations in Newport Beach were notified ten days prior the public hearing, that the public hearing was published in the newspaper ten days prior to the Planning Commission meeting, that the Ordinance has been put on the study session agendas permitting community participation, that every effort has been made by the City to notify the community of the subject public hearing. Mr. Burnham cited that the City is not required to have a public hearing on the Ordinance, and that the City has gone to the furthest extent possible to notify the community. Mr. Nichols opined that there is a discrepancy of the meaning "planned deficiency" between the City and the residents of Corona del Mar and that this subject needs to be addressed. Commissioner Koppelman commented that the community has been notified; however, there has been no reaction. _27_ October 10, 1985 MINUTES INDEX Mr. Martin Wells, 17555 Anita Lane, San Diego, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wells stated that he is a property owner on Mariner's Mile, and was notified of the public hearing by the staff and the Planning Commission. The public hearing was closed at this time. A x Mr. Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer, referred to C o n 15.40.030 (b) stating that the Ordinance "will include major improvements to the majority of the intersections impacted by the project which will result in a net benefit to the circulation system ", stating that the C z = 9 w z= o C 0 T 0 m intent is for an instance when a project has more than City of Newport Beach z improvements could be made then a finding could be made INDEX Mr. Martin Wells, 17555 Anita Lane, San Diego, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wells stated that he is a property owner on Mariner's Mile, and was notified of the public hearing by the staff and the Planning Commission. The public hearing was closed at this time. • I ( I I I I that the Ordinance includes major improvements to a 1 majority of the intersections. -28- Mr. Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer, referred to 15.40.030 (b) stating that the Ordinance "will include major improvements to the majority of the intersections impacted by the project which will result in a net benefit to the circulation system ", stating that the intent is for an instance when a project has more than one improvement required, and a majority of the improvements could be made then a finding could be made to this effect in approving the Traffic Study. He advised that this is not an automatic approval of the Traffic Study but would allow the Planning Commission or City Council to approve the project based on such a finding. • Mr. Edmonston stated that the draft changes shown in the Ordinance and in the administrative procedures do not show any change in the override vote requirement, it remains as 4 /5ths of the members eligible to vote. He stated that staff feels that a reasonable provision of the override would be 5 affirmative votes rather than the 4 /5ths that would require 6 affirmative votes, and that 5 affirmative votes would be the most restrictive of any City requirements in effect in the City Charter. Commissioner Kurlander commented that if 5 members of the Planning Commission members were voting and if the Ordinance required 6 votes, then the item would be denied or not voted upon, or the item would have to be continued until a sufficient number of Planning Commissioners were present. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would like to have the vote stay at 4 /5ths because the document is broadening the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; that the Ordinance is increasing the number of automobiles that will go through an intersection on a green light by also eliminating the yellow light by 108; that the Ordinance is providing an alternate trip generation rate with documentation; that the Ordinance is going to .3 on the decimal rounded to .2 under certain circumstances; and • I ( I I I I that the Ordinance includes major improvements to a 1 majority of the intersections. -28- October 10, 1985 MINUTES _29_ x x E y v 9 9 I r v m 2 C m y m = C Z 0 0 3 0 0 M s z A= M m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL Commissioner Goff referred to 15.40.020 (b), and asked for the definition of "major improvement" and "net Mr. Edmonston advised that provisions have been added benefit ", and how those would be helpful. Mr. to provide for the "sunsetting" of approval projects. Edmonston replied that a "major improvement" would be, He said one question that arises is what happens to the for instance, the actual widening of an intersection committed traffic that has been incorporated in leg or a provision of an additional lane other than an subsequent studies if a project does not proceed. In a improvement only requiring restriping. He further case where the project has expired under the "sunset" replied that "net benefit" is an entirely subjective provisions, the projected traffic from that project determination. An example might be if the project had would be removed from the master file and would not be 10 intersections that needed improvement and could make considered subsequently. improvements at 9 of those intersections, compared to a Mr. Edmonston cited that there is a proposal to add to project that only 2 intersections needed to be improved the consideration of committed projects, projects that and 1 of those 2 were improved. He said that this is are not under the City's jurisdiction. A question was not a finding that would result in an automatic raised as to who would determine the projects to be approval of the project and would still require the included. Wording could be added indicating the intent that those projects would be compiled by the Traffic Engineer and submitted to the Planning Commission for review prior to being incorporated in any future studies. Mr. Edmonston stated that the alternate trip generation intent is that the approval would be done as part of . the formal process just as there is a possibility under the Ordinance as it exists that the trip generation rate could be reduced if the proponent intends to institute car pooling or other such measures, and those measures are not approved ahead of time but are considered as part of the approval process. He said that the applicant would have to submit satisfactory evidence to the Traffic Engineer before he would be able to proceed with the study, and that if the documentation was adequate, the study would proceed but it would still be subject to review by the Planning Commission. _29_ Commissioner Goff referred to 15.40.020 (b), and asked for the definition of "major improvement" and "net benefit ", and how those would be helpful. Mr. Edmonston replied that a "major improvement" would be, for instance, the actual widening of an intersection leg or a provision of an additional lane other than an improvement only requiring restriping. He further replied that "net benefit" is an entirely subjective determination. An example might be if the project had 10 intersections that needed improvement and could make improvements at 9 of those intersections, compared to a project that only 2 intersections needed to be improved and 1 of those 2 were improved. He said that this is not a finding that would result in an automatic approval of the project and would still require the _29_ "MISSIONERS October 10, 1985 7x C o x M C V 2 C m a m Z Z 9 T 1 City of Newport Beach Z 0 o 3 0 0 Planning Commission or City Council to agree that there was a "net benefit ". Commissioner Koppelman expressed her concern regarding this section, and if there had been a previous criteria that would trigger this section. Ms. Temple stated that this section is intended to address a project that has identified a number of improvements, and using the example of the previously proposed Cottage Homes on Fifth Avenue, Ms. Temple advised that there was one intersection which needed improvement that could not be made, and in that particular situation there would not be any other improvements made by the project to counter balance; therefore, would not be put in this category, but in the override category. Commissioner Winburn asked if a Development Agreement would apply to this section? Mr. Edmonston replied that the intent of the 5 year threshold is that projects which were going to take more than 5 years would be subject to a Development Agreement, and one of the items included in the Development Agreement is a comparable traffic analysis including the evaluation of roadway and intersection capacity. He said that the intent was if there was a large project phased over more than 5 years that a Development Agreement process would be used rather than following strictly a Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and that under the Development Agreement and the traffic analysis that would be required, the same finding could be made. Motion I I I I ( Commissioner Winburn made a motion to recommend to the City Council the revisions to Traffic Phasing Ordinance Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chairman Person advised that he will support the motion. He said that he will support the 4 /5ths majority, that this is a policy decision. In reply to questions posed by Commissioner Turner and Commissioner Koppelman regarding projects outside the City at this time, Mr. Edmonston replied that the Ordinance states that if there is a provision, that the Traffic Engineer subject to review by the Planning Commission in exercising professional discretion, shall establish the basis for performing the traffic analysis at project completion and that is where the basis for the committed original project would be incorporated within the reference in the Ordinance, but the details are specific in the Council Policy. -30- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS October 10, 1985 Commissioner Goff asked if the motion could be amended to read so that 15.40.030(b) could be defined to state that a net benefit be a decrease in ICU for those intersections.. Mr. Edmonston replied that the current Ordinance provides that at any given intersection, all that is required is that the ICU value be reduced below what it would be without the project if it is above .9. He said that there may be intersections that could not be reduced below .9 or what the ICU ratio would be without the project. After further discussion followed regarding the amendment to the motion, Commissioner Goff withdrew the amendment. Ayes I xlxlxlx [ I I I Motion was voted on to recommend the revisions to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Chapter 15.40 to City Council. MOTION CARRIED. x In reference to the Administrative Procedures for a Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, II (B) (3) i a v m regarding projects approved by adjacent jurisdictions y 9 r v which have significant traffic impacts in the City, z c m a m z Commissioner Koppelman commented upon her concern that a z z p= p r 0 01 the airport area does not have a defined boundary. Mr. A z T City of Newport Beach until the data has been received from the City of Commissioner Goff asked if the motion could be amended to read so that 15.40.030(b) could be defined to state that a net benefit be a decrease in ICU for those intersections.. Mr. Edmonston replied that the current Ordinance provides that at any given intersection, all that is required is that the ICU value be reduced below what it would be without the project if it is above .9. He said that there may be intersections that could not be reduced below .9 or what the ICU ratio would be without the project. After further discussion followed regarding the amendment to the motion, Commissioner Goff withdrew the amendment. Ayes I xlxlxlx [ I I I Motion was voted on to recommend the revisions to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Chapter 15.40 to City Council. MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to recommend for Ayes x x x x approval the Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, including Amended III(B) (3) to City Council. Commissioner Turner stated that he will support the motion based on the amendment to III(B)(3). Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. r] -31- MINUTES INDEX In reference to the Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, II (B) (3) regarding projects approved by adjacent jurisdictions which have significant traffic impacts in the City, • Commissioner Koppelman commented upon her concern that the airport area does not have a defined boundary. Mr. Edmonston replied that the area is difficult to define until the data has been received from the City of Irvine, and that at that time it is hoped a natural boundary will define itself. Further discussion followed regarding the implementation of the proposed current projects and future projects that would be affected by paragraph 3; Mr. Hewicker recommended that the paragraph be amended to read: "all projects within the City and Sphere -of- Influence including the Newport Dunes, The Irvine Coastal area, Santa Ana Heights, Beeco- Banning property, and additional projects as determined by the Traffic Engineer which would have significant traffic impacts ". Motion x Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to recommend for Ayes x x x x approval the Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, including Amended III(B) (3) to City Council. Commissioner Turner stated that he will support the motion based on the amendment to III(B)(3). Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. r] -31- MINUTES INDEX Motion Ayes • COMMISSIONERS c o a v m y v r v = G m y m = W a A = r o S c= m m; 0 0 m s Z 9 z T m z a z I xlxlx IN October 10, 1985 MINUTES City of Newport Beach D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: A public hearing was set for November 7, 1925, regard- ing the proposed ordinances for the regulations of satellite dishes and radio antennas. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of changing the Commission meetings from Thursday evenings to enable interested Commissioners to attend the Orange County League of City meetings that are also held on Thursday evenings. � w x A D J O U R N M E N T: 10:45 p.m. * x t PAT EICHENHOPER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -32- INDEX Additional Business PH set for Radio Antennas & Satellite Dishes Possibilit] of PCM Change Adjourn-