Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1978COMMISSIONERS 2 ROLL CALL Present • 10 MINUTES City of Newport Beach Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. Date: October 19, 1978 xxxxxxx EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Commu Hugh Coffin, Assis Bill Dye, Assistan STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, David Dmohowski, A Beverly Wood, Envi Fred Talarico, Sen Joanne Bader, Secr Approval of the mi of October 5, 1978 disposition of Ite i.e., clarificatio Planning Commissio respect to Amendme Request to conside office building an Block 600 of Newpo Hearing) Location: A port locate on the Drive and Sa 600 of Zone: C -O -H Applicant: Pruden Americ Owner: The Ir pity Development Director tant City Attorney t City Engineer Assistant Director - Planning ivance Planning Administrator ronmental Coordinator for Planner �tary nutes of the Regular Meeting was deferred until after the R No. 4 on tonight's agenda; i of the action taken by the n on October 5, 1978 with it No. 514. (See Page 18) r a Traffic Study for a 22 -story i a 500 -room hotel complex in rt Center (Continued Public ion of Lot 22, Tract No. 6015, i at 600 Newport Center Drive, easterly side of Santa Cruz )etween Newport Center Drive n Joaquin Hills Road in Block Newport Center. tial Insurance Company of a, Newport Beach vine Company, Newport Beach AND -1- INDEX Item No. 1 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR OFFICE BUILDING AND HOTEL N N F I E� NTLR APPROVED COMMISSIONERS • ROLL CALL City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 MINUTES INDEX Item No. 2 Request to establish two parcels, one for a pro- RESUBDI- posed office building, hotel complex and parking IS�ION NO. structure and one for sign purposes only, and the 563 acceptance of an environmental document. Location: A portion of Lot 22, Tract No. 6015, Located at 600 Newport Center Drive, on the easterly side of Santa Cruz .Drive between Newport Center Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road in Block 600 of Newport Center. Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Williamson and Schmid, Irvine AND • Request of The Irvine Company to re- allocate proposed office space square footage in Block 500 Newport Center for the "purpose of constructing a 22 -story office building and a 500 - room hotel complex in Block 600 of Newport Center. (Continued Discussion) Agenda Items Nos. 1,. 2, and 3 were heard con- currently because of their relationship. Herman Basmaciyan, subconsultant to Herman Kimmel and Associates (who was retained by the City to perform the traffic analyses relating to this project), appeared before the Planning Commission. In answer to a question by the Planning Commission as to why the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive was not included in the traffic analysis, Mr. Basmaciyan replied that the City did not direct the consultant to analyze that intersection. Bill Darnell, Traffic Engineer, addressed the Planning Commission and advised that the City did not direct the consultant to include the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive in the traffic study because the administrative procedures, which were adopted by. the. Planning -2- COMMISSIONERS C ROLL CALL is • MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 Commission and City Council, included.a geographic delineation of the intersections that staff believed would be impacted by a project.. The intersection of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road was not included in Geographic Area 8, which is Newport Center and vicinity; and subsequently, not included as part of the analysis for this project.. Mr. Cerise.appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Coopers and Lybrand, to answer questions of the Commission pertinent to the cost /revenue analysis. During the course of the question and answer session, Mr. Cerise indicated that the cost /revenue analysis has identified the minimum amount of surplus that is likely to result from this project; that the data taxpayers should be concerned with in analyzing this project, or any project, are the incremental costs compared to the incremental revenues which may occur from a project; and that Coopers and Lybrand has taken a conservative approach in the preparation of the cost /revenue analysis as a result of staff direction and an overall philosophy in consulting to tend to be toward the conservative side. Planning Commission called attention to Page 4 -12 of the analysis which states that "the total indirect sales tax accruing to the City as a result of development of the Pacific Plaza project is estimated by the developer at $50,000 per year. Coopers and Lybrand believes this estimate to be conservative." Planning Commission inquired as to the basis this estimate is believed to be conservative and. Me. Cerise responded that it is believed to be conservative because by estimating the amount of activity that would be generated by the new office building and hotel in terms of empl and visitors, Coopers and Lybrand calculated that this would come to approximately $43 per year, per person spent indirectly in the Fashion Island area. Mr. Cerise felt that a more - reasonable figure, although still conservative, would-be that approximately $100,000 per year would be. accrued through total indirect sales tax.. Mr. Cerise went on to say that approximately $54,000 of the $100,000 figure would be attributed to the indirect sales tax revenue of the office building. ISIS INDEX ees COMMISSIONERS v��'f• Ys �"! ��` O City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL Mike Wright, of Westec Services, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the Planning Commission's concern wi.th the South Coast Air Quality Management District's opinion that this project would not meet the national air,quality standards. Mr. Wright explained that the air basin over which the South Coast Air Quality Management District has jurisdiction, has been defined by the Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board as being a "Nonattainmen Area." Therefore, any activity that takes place in the air basin is in violation of the Federal Air Quality Standards, as defined under the Clea Air Act. Public hearing was opened in.connection with thi project and Ernie Wilson, of Langdon and Wilson Architects, appeared before the Planning Commissi on behalf of the Prudential Insurance Company of America. Mr. Wilson reviewed the proposed operational characteristics of the hotel facilit, indicating that it is not intended as a conventi • hotel; would contain a banquet facility; and tha the facilities would be of the size and scope that presently exist in the Marriott Hotel.. Wit respect to Jean Watt's letter to the City Counci which took issue with the methodology used by th City Traffic Engineer in connection with the Block 600 Traffic Study dealing with this projec Mr. Wilson advised that Langdon and Wilson has thoroughly reviewed the administrative procedure for implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and that it believes the procedure which was approved by the City Council has been adhered to and that the report complies with that ordinance James A. Knolls, Mechanical Engineer for this project, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the issue of energy conservation as it relates to the subject project. Mr. Knolls commented that the proposed office building woul have a dead north face, which in the case of the Security Headquarters Building, has resulted in. a 20% reduction in the amount of cooling require Mr. Knolls further explained that the proposed office building would be used as a "solar collet or" throughout the day and that the heat which - 4 - MINUTES . t i ID V. 3n t i 1, t, s d.. t- INDEX COMMISSIONERS 0 ROLL CALL • MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 would be accumulated from same would be used to serve the hotel facility, which has nighttime requirements. Mr. Knolls advised that every elemen of the hotel and office building has been optimize so.as to use the structures for thermal inertia.. In conclusion, Mr. Knolls expressed his belief that this project would be the most efficient development in Newport Center with respect to energy conservation, and possibly the most effic- ient project in the County. Glen Martin, 4807 Courtland Drive, Corona del Mar appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Mar tin felt that if Newport Beach's retail business continues to erode, there will be just as many, cars driving from Newport Beach to other shopping centers and driving back again, as if Newport Beac had a major shopping center that attracted people from other cities. He advised that he studied the sales tax revenue for 1977 and the first half of 1978 for Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Hunt - ington Beach, Irvine, and Santa Ana. For the . first two quarters of 1977, Newport Beach received 59% as much sales tax.revenue as Costa Mesa; 71.4% as much as Huntington Beach; 132% as much as Irvine; and 40% as much as Santa Ana. For the first two quarters of 1978, Newport Beach received 55% as much sales tax revenue as Costa Mesa; 71.1% as much as Huntington Beach; 98% as much as Irvine; and 38% as much as Santa Ana. Mr. Martin expressed his belief that the citizens of Newport Beach need the sales tax revenue that will be derived from this project and.other projects of this type. Daniel Emory, 2250 Golden Circle, Newport Beach appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced concern that general circulation system improve- ments are identified in the Traffic Study as miti- gation measures for specific projects. It was Mr. Emory's opinion that same is unnecessary and that it creates a distortion in the analysis. He also voiced concern that the mere restriping of roads are addressed in the Traffic Study as the solution to some of the traffic problems in New- port Beach. Mr. Emory questioned why this has not already been done if the solution is that simple. - 5 - INDEX COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 Mr. Emory felt that the Traffic Study .should be revised to include more - precise guidelines relative to the definition of "mitigation measures ",,and more - precise guidelines as to which road improvements. may be counted and which may not. Ray Hoss,. 1221 Bayside Drive, Corona. del Mar appeared before the Planning Commission and commented that inasmuch as the City does not yet know the full impact of Proposition 13, he believe that every city should support projects that will generate income to the city. Mr. Hoss also com- mented that he believes the proposed project is a good one and would be a continuation of one of the most - outstanding centers in the United States. In view of the foregoing, Mr. Hoss urged approval of the proposal. Deborah Allen, 1021 White Sails, Corona del Mar appeared before the Planning Commission and • stated that regardless of how much indirect sales tax the City would derive from the office bui.lding the basic revenue source would be property taxes. In light of the fact that property taxes can only be raised 2% a year and the cost of City services will go up considerably more, Ms. Allen questioned why the City would be willing to allow a project to be developed which may cost the City money. Sh felt that if the development were a school, hospital, or community center,'that the expenditur would be justified; however, Ms. Allen could not see the justification.for an office building. 40 Jean Watt, 4 Harbor Island, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the Traffic Study. Ms. Watt felt that the City should define the terms "mitigation ", ".acceptable roadways" and "improvements." Ms. Watt then voiced her belief that City street improvements should not be called a mitigation measure for any one project inasmuch as the City road system is a total system. She also voiced concern with the use of predictions in the Traffic Study. It was Ms. Watt's opinion that the Traffic Study should be redone to.reflect inclusion of the above. INDEX COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 IZI17 #3 Dr. Judith Lubay appeared before the Planning Commission and spoke in support of the proposed office building and hotel in view of the fact that they would provide needed office space and a place for visitors to stay, eat and shop, respectively. Bob Milar, 115 Crystal Avenue, Balboa Island appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced his opinion that more- substantial proof is needed that the proposed mitigation measures contained in the Traffic Study will, in fact, solve the traffic problem. Steven Gavin, Vice President of the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and indicated that. Pacific Mutual is not opposed to the proposed project and that they believe the development, under proper conditions, could be an important factor in the community viability of Newport Beach. He urged that the Planning Commission, in arriving at its • decision, give consideration to the impact the decision will have on the other planned developmen in Newport Center. Mr: Gavin used as an example the fact that Pacific Mutual has had a major facility in Newport Beach for seven years and are in critical need of additional space to accommodate their growth. Mr. Gavin stated that they would be more than seriously affected if they were to discover that all traffic volume had been preempted before their application for enlargement could be acted upon. Tom Morrissey appeared before the Planning Commis- sion on behalf of Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation and urged that the Planning Commiss in's decision take into consideration the purposes and the rights of land users who are attempting to develop their property on a slow. and rational basis. Mr. Morrissey felt that the traffic considerations should take into accoun the traffic that will be generated downstream as property is developed. Betty Grubb, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission and urged approval of the project in view of its economic benefits. -7- .COMMISSIONERS City of Newport. Beach . October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL MINUTES INDEX Bill Ficker, 522 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Planning Commission and spoke in support of the project due to its design, the quality employment that will be provided, and the economic benefits that will be derived. Sue Ficker, 110 9th Street, Balboa, appeared before the Planning Commission and questioned whether the City has an obligation to Prudential' to supply.them with a vista for future growth, or an obligation to the citizens of this community. She stated that the residents of Newport Beach moved to the City for a particular type of environment and that if this environment is destroyed, then the City is acting in contradiction to its own General Plan. Ms. Ficker then commented on the cumulative effect of drainage from the projected development into the bay. Frank Remer, 210 Goldenrod, Corona.del Mar, appeared before th.e Planning Commission and spoke • in support of the proposal in view of the fact that needed office space would be provided. Ed Seibel, resident of Balboa Island, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed his belief that the City should devise a form of allocating the entire traffic excess capacity among all the proposed developments which is allowed by the General Plan. He therefore felt that it would be prudent at this time for the Planning Commission to reject the Prudential proposal in order to give all developers a chance to work toward a rational solution to the traffic problem. Thomas Casey, 2007 Kewamee Drive, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed that the City needs office space and also needs banquet space, as would be provided in the hotel, to stage events to raise money for the hospital. Michael Lewis appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Prudential Insurance Company and commented that all concerns expressed . by various members of the community have been adequately answered in various reports and in testimony given during the hearing. He added that the traffic impact of this project has been thoroughly studied by the City staff and its M COMMISSIONERS F y' �. 9Smpla 'L v • �� CZ City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL consultant in light of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and that Prudential believes this analysis proves that the Pacific Plaza project complies with the requirements of the ord.inance. He added that the economic impact of the project has also been thoroughly analyzed by the City's consultant and that Prudential believes the net revenue to the City of $500,000 to $550,000 per year, will significantly benefit the City it light of Proposition 13. Inasmuch as Prudential believes that this project complies with all the ordinances and regulations of the City, Mr. Lewis respectfully requested that the Planni Commission approve this project with the under - standing that Prudential accepts all of the conditions set forth in the staff report. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard with respect to this project, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m. Motion x Motion was made that the Traffic Study be refers Ayes x x back to the consultant, with the direction that Noes x x x x x the intersection of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road be included in the, analysis, which motion failed. Commissioner Cokas expressed his belief that the project would, in fact, bring revenue into the City; that the environmental design, of the project is good and perhaps even.excellent; and that although the Traffic Analysis has some weal spots in it, he considers it adequate to make .a decision this evening. Commissioner Cokas was concerned, however, that approval of the total project would commit a large amount of the traf capacity that the City will ultimately have. Commissioner Agee advised that he was impressed with Mr. Knoll's testimony relative to the eneri -9- MINUTES Fi 3y INDEX COMMISSIONERS � Awn O��QC • � 2 City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL conservation aspects of the proposal and that he was pleased to learn that although the 22 -story "solar collector" is a part of the system, there are some energy- saving features of the hotel. With respect to the cost /revenue analysis, Commissioner Agee felt that even though there ay some questions about what costs should be alloca and the types of costs which should be allocated he believes it is clear that the revenue from th hotel to the City i.s probably the most substanti and most beneficial. He further felt that although the hotel and office building would generate approximately the same amount of daily trips, the significant difference is the fact that the trips generated from the hotel facility would be primarily non -peak hour trips. Commis- sioner Agee was also concerned with the total development of the Newport Center area and the interests of all the businesses in the Center. Commissioner Frederickson voiced that although • he favors the entire project, he feels a sense of responsibility to the other people who have either ownership or control of the land yet to be developed in Newport Center. Commissioner Haidinger voiced concern with the simplicity of many of the mitigation measures that are.proposed in the traffic study and indicated that he feels there is some merit to t question raised earlier as to if the solution tc the traffic problem is that easy, why hasn't it been done before. Commissioner Haidinger was also concerned about the other landowners in Newport Center and voiced his opinion. that apprc of the office building at this time could depriv them of the right to use their property in the future. Were it not for these two concerns, Commissioner Haidinger indicated that he would support approval of the entire plan. Commissioner Beek voiced concern with recommende Condition of Approval.No. 25 for the resubdivisi which provides that the bay bridge project shall be under construction prior to occupancy. It wa Commissioner Beek's concern that same would be unenforceable and, therefore, unnecessary. • Community Development Director Hogan explained t when the City's.Building Division has a conditic -10- MINUTES ,e , e a'1 he va e on ha INDEX COMMISSIONERS 0 ROIL CALL Motion Noes I x I Ix Ayes x x x x x 0 MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 of this kind regarding occupancy, they do not issue the occupancy permit which the developer must have before he occupies a building. Further, the City does not issue clearance to the utility compancies to supply the utilities. It was agreed that Planning Commission would vote on Agenda Items Nos. 1, 2, and 3 by one motion; said agenda items being the Traffic Study, resubdivision, and proposed reallocation of office space square footage in Newport Center, respectively. Motion was made that Planning Commission approve the conversion of 90,000 sq. ft. of office space. in Block 600 to a hotel facility; Approve development of the hotel as proposed; Deny the office building and deny the reallocation of office space from Block 500 to Block 600 with the following findings: That a traffic study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Ordinance No. 1777 That the traffic study indicates that the project- generated traffic will be greater tha one percent of existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period of any leg of the critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service, prior to mitigation, at eleven critical intersections which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. That the traffic study suggests several mitigation measures which, according.to the calculations, will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at ten of the critical intersections, and will improve the existing level of traffic service at the remaining impacted intersection. That the proposed project, including traffic mitigation measures, will neither cause nor -11- INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffi service on any "major ", "primary- modified" or "primary" street. 5. That although the project as proposed and th mitigation as proposed comply to the require ments of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic analysis indicates that the hotel alone can be approved without seriously restricting future development of other properties. However, it is evident in the analysis that some intersections will be impacted, even with mitigation measures, to the extent that an analysis of the total development of Newport Center will be neces- sary prior to approval of the proposed office building. That Planning Commission make the following findings with reference to the Draft Environment Impact Report: • 1. That the Draft Environmental Impact Report i complete and prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act... 2. That the contents of the Draft Environmental Impact Report have been considered in the decisions on this project. 3. That based on the information contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the project, and that the economic benefits that would accrue to the community, as demonstrated in the cost /revenue study, together with the mitigation measures overri the anticipated.negative effects of the project. That Planning Commission make the following find with reference to Resubdivision No. 563: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all appl.icable general or specific plans and the Planning C . mission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. -12- MINUTES al de in INDEX COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 INDEX 2, That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. and approve Resubdivision No. 563, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That.all connections for water and sewer be accomplished in a manner satisfactory to the Public Works Department. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a water.capital improvement acreage fee be paid. 5. That storage capacity in San Joaquin Reservoir equal to one maximum days' demand be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. 6. That a P.C.C. sidewalk with a width of at leas 5 feet be constructed on each side of Center Drive. The design and location shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 7. That a P.C.C. sidewalk similar in width and location to the existing sidewalk easterly of Parcel 1 be constructed along Newport Center Drive West. Alternatively, a 9- foot -wide sidewalk adjacent to the property line may be constructed. The design and location shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 8. That an on -site master plan for pedestrian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Community Develop- ment Department. 9. That all vehicular access rights to Santa Cruz Drive except at the existing private drive (Center Drive) opposite San Clemente Drive be released and relinquished to the City 10. That all vehicular access rights to San Joa- quin Hills Road, except for a private drive • at a location approved by the Public Works Department, be released and relinquished to the City. -13- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES . City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL October 19, 1978 INDEX 11. That an on -site master plan circulation be reviewed and Public Works Department and opment Department prior to the parcel map. The final ing circulation system shal review and approval by the Department. for vehicular . approved by the Community Devel- recordation of design of the.par l.be subject to Public Works 12. That all vehicular access rights to Newport Center Drive West except for one private drive, at a location.approved by the Public. Works Department, be released and relinquish- ed to the City. 13. That the existing median in Newport Center Drive West be modified as required by the Public Works Department to provide for channelized left turns into the site. 14. That an easement be provided for the traffic • control system at the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Drive. 15. That a master plan of utilities be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. prior to recordation of the parcel map. This plan shall show the location of existing and all proposed fire hydrants. The location of fire hydrants shall also be approved by the Fire Department. 16. That a traffic signal be constructed by the developer at the intersection of Center, Drive with Santa Cruz Drive. 17. That a traffic signal be constructed at the intersection of Santa Cruz Drive and Newport Center "Drive West; with the funding to be 50% developer and 50% City. (Note: At its meeting of February 9, 1970, the City Council established a funding responsibility of 1010% City funds for this signal. The.revised fund ing formula has been, recommended because of the reduced availability of gas tax funds, and because of the traffic burden placed on S the intersection by the Pacific Plaza development. -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach _ October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX 18. That wi.dening of Santa Cruz Drive in the vicinity of Center Drive.to provide a median island and left -turn lane be formally studied prior to recordation of the parcel map. This study shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department. If widening is required,,the required street easement along the easterly side of Santa Cruz Drive` shall be dedicated to the public and the street widening constructed.. 19. That a standard subdivision agreement and surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it .. is desired to obtain building permits or record the parcel map before the public improvements are completed. 20. Building access shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. • 21. Development of the site will be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the'Depart- ment of Community Development.. Surface and subsurface drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department: 22. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted with the grading permit application and be subject to the. approval of the Community Development Department. 23. The landscape plan be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department; and shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of organo.- p- hosphates and pesticides. 24. That,parkin.g will be provided.on the site according to the following standards: a. Hotel: .1 space for every 2 guest rooms b. Related Restaur- Limited to square ant and Commer- footage of uses to be cial uses: calculated according to Code requirements. -15- ROLL CALL Motion Ayes N(S 9 MINUTES City of Newport Beach, October 19,1978 INDEX c. A maximum of 25% of the parking spaces ' may be striped for compact cars. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any.major structure, the,staff shall review this standard and determine if it is still .valid. If, at that time, the staff determines that additional adjustments to the. formula are required, the matter shall be. referred to the Planning Commission. 25. Prior to occupancy of the hotel,, the applicant shall install, or bond for, all traffic mitiga.tion,measures determined by the Public Works and Community Development Directors to be necessary to accommodate the hotel. with the exception of the Upper :Bay Bridge and the intersect,ion.of MacArthur Boulevard'/ Ford Road. The Bay Bridge.project sha11 be under construction prior to occupancy. Planning Commission recessed at.10:05 p.m and reconvened at 10:15 ,p. m. Item No. 4; Request to clarify the a.ction.taken by the AMENDMENT Planning Commission on October 5, 1978. A pro- NO. 514 - posed amendment to the Planned Community Districts CLARIFICA- to revise the allowable development to be TION ITEM consistent with the capacity of.the.c.irculation. system for the following P -C District areas: 1. Corporate Plaza 2., North Ford 3., Emkay.- Newport .Place 4: Koll Center Newport 5. Aeronutronic =Ford Initiated.by: City of Newport Beach x Following discussion, motion was'made that K x x x x Planning.Commission clarify the. intent of its x action taken on October 5, 1978 by revising' the wording of the motion, as proposed in the draft minutes of that.meeting, to.read as follows: -16 -. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach F y`w.s, vs O�Pip �Q - z October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL "PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is sq. ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978 in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being gq,.ft., shall be approved only after.it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by.the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General . Plan." Robert Shelton appeared before the Planning Commission, on behalf of The Irvine Company, in response to a concern voiced by a member of the Planning Commission that the development that has occurred in Corporate Plaza may not be consistent with The Irvine Company's voluntary moratorium. Mr. Shelton advised that in August of 1977, The Irvine Company stated that it was. willing to defer the filing of four specific projects for a period of approximately six months or until the General Plan was presumed to be ready for action. Said projects involved the Castaways development, Newport Center Condominium The Newporter North residential development, and the Bayview Landing development. Mr. Shelton. further advised that at that time The.Irvine Company made it clear that it intended to proceec with the Harbor Ridge.development, the Corporate Plaza development and the Westbay development. Mr. Shelton expressed that The Irvine Company has kept its word with respect to the projects it sai it would not file and, in addition, has not proceeded with Civic Plaza, Westbay, North Ford, and several.smaller parcels that were not • specifically mentioned. Mr. Shelton stated that the buildings that are being developed in Corporate Plaza are not Irvine Company buildings, but are being built by other people on land that is either purchased or leased from The Irvine Company. -17- s, INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL MINUTES Motion x Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 5, 1978 Ayes x x x x x x were approved with the revision that the motion Noes x for Amendment No. 514, as set forth in the minutes, be made to coincide with the clarified action taken by the Planning Commission in connection with Agenda Item No. 4 on tonight's agenda. Therefore, the last paragraph on Page 13 and first paragraph on Page 14 shall read as follows: "Motion x "Planning Commission adopted Resolution "Ayes x x x x x x x No. 1018 recommending to the City Council that Amendment No. 514 be adopted. This amendment would place . the following language in the Emkay Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, Aeronutronic Ford, North Ford, and Corporate Plaza Planned Community • texts: 'PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is sq. ft. Any further . development subsequent to October 1, 1978 in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan.'" =18- INDEX MINUTES OF OCT. 5, 1978 APPROVED WITH REVISION COMMISSIONERS vp�m vC mM� pO�Tp� O 'u City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL A proposal to amend Chapter 15.35 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to Reports of Residential Building Records. Initated by: City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Glen Martin appeared before.the Planning Commission on behalf of the Board of Realtors.. Mr. Martin felt that the physical inspections are accomplishing the purposes for which they were established; i.e., discovering violations by virtue of illegal units and illegal uses of structures. It was Mr. Martin's belief that no seller would volunteer to have his property inspected and pay the fee. Mr. Martin suggested that the ordinance either be left as it is or dropped all together. • There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made that Amendment No. 519 not be All Ayes adopted. A proposed amendment to the Land Use, Residential Growth, Circulation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements to include: 1. Possible reduction in allowable intensity of development on the major commercial/ industrial undeveloped sites, including, but not limited to; the following: (a) Newport Center (h) Koll Center Newport (c) Emkay Newport Place (d) Castaways Commercial Site (e) Bayview Landing Site (f) Aeronutronic -Ford Industrial Site (g) San Diego Creek Sites • 2. Possible reduction in the number of dwellinc units allowable on the major residential undeveloped sites, including, but not -19 -• MINUTES INDEX Item No. 5 AMENDMENT NO. NOT APPROVI Item No. 6 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 78 -2 APPROVED R -1021 COMMISSIONERS F v�sf y� p�A 2c op2 City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL limited to, the following: (a) Aeronutronic -Ford Residential Site (b) Westbay Site (c) Newporter North (d) Freeway Reservation near MacArthur Boulevard (e) Fifth Avenue Parcels (f) Caltrans Parcels West Newport (g) Beeco Property (h) Vacant residential parcel to the south Roger's Gardens (i) Castaways Residential Site 3. Development of a phasing plan to coordinate new development with planned improvements in the circulation system. 4. Revision of the existing density classificai system to use numerical density categories. • 5. Assessment of possible reductions in allowa- ble development in terms of fiscal impacts and environmental considerations. Community Development Director Hogan reviewed wi the Planning Commission an addendum to the staff report, entitled "Possible Approach to Amending General Plan." Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Robert Shelton appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company. Mr. Shelton was concerned that in the staff.report addendum, entitled "Possible Approac to Amending General Plan ", an arbitrary reductior is sugges.ted for Newport Center, yet there is no change recommended for Koll, Center Newport, Emkay Newport Place, and Aeronutronic Ford. WitF respect to the suggested reductions in allowable square footage in Newport Center for Office /Medic and Commercial /Retail and Restaurant uses, Mr. Shelton commented that The Irvine Company feels that the development in Newport Center should be allowed to occur as planned. and that it is • generally in the community interest that this be allowed to happen. Mr. Shelton also felt that s language should be approved by the Planning Comm -20- MINUTES of wit al so is- INDEX COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 INDEX sion which would allow a trade -off of some residential units for commercial space and that the maximum allowable dwelling units for the Castaways site should be set at 100 DU's. Donald Gralnek, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced his opinion that the wording being considered by the Planning Commission, which requires a traffic study for the Newport Center area, is unclear as to intent and should be clarified. Ed Siebel appeared before the Planning Commission and commented that no decisions on development limitations should be made until we know what the road carrying capacity of the City is, or will be.. He suggested, therefore, the need to redefine the Circulation Element and what the City wants in the way of intersections and roads in Newport Beach. • Robert Shelton reappeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company and recommended that inasmuch as the square footage for Newport Center's Office /Medical space and Commercial /Retail and Restaurant space is proposed to be reduced by approximately 500,000 sq. ft., that the.allowable residential dwelling units be increased from 450 DU's to 800 DU's. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made that Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration, and adopt Resolution No. 1021 recommending to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 78 -2 be adopted as follows: COMMERCIAL SITES Newport Center (a) Amend General Plan for Newport Center to provide that total development shall not exceed the following limits for each category .of development: is 1. Office /Medical 3,750,000 sq. ft. 2. Commercial /Retail and Restaurant 1,250,000 sq. ft. -21- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 MINUTES INDEX 3. Theater 4,400 seats 4. Hotel 377 rooms 5. Residential 800 DU's 6. Civic /Cultural 100,000 sq. ft. 7. Automotive 5 acres 8. Golf Club 18 holes 9. Tennis Club 24 courts (b) Prior to any development in addition to Corporate Plaza, Civic Plaza, and buildings which were in plan check by October 1, 1978 or which are specifically approved by the Planning Commission or City. Council, an analysis of traffic impact of the full development of Newport Center, Newporter North Bayview Landing, Big Canyon, and the residential development at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road shall be made and mitigation measures shall be proposed to assure that adequate traffic capacity will be available upon • completion of development. In addition, a traffic phasing program shall be prepared to accommodate development as it proceeds. (c) Changes to the types and location of uses, including residential, may be made provided that an analysis of both location and intensity demonstrates that the traffic system is not adversely affected and that traffic generation as it affects the major inter- sections during critical peak periods does not exceed the capacities provided in the approved street development plan. Castaways Commercial Site (25 a.). (a) Amend General Plan to provide for alternate us of Medium Density Residential with a maximum of 100 dwellings on approximately 20 acres of the site. (b) Recreational and Marine Commercial would remain on approximately 5 acres of the site adjacent to Dover and Coast Highway. • I I I 1111 I(c) Design shall make provision for public access consistent with coastal act policies and ordinances of the City. -22- COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL (d) EIR for any proposed development shall examine alternative land uses and, clearly set forth impacts of those land uses and possible mitigation measures to relieve the adverse impacts. Bayview Landing Site (a) Amend General Plan.to provide for alternate use of Medium- Density Residential or a combination of Medium- Density.Residential and Recreational and Marine Commercial. Maximum number of residential units shall not exceed 85. (b) Design shall make provisions for public access consistent with coastal act policies and ordinances of the City. (c) EIR for any proposed development shall examine all alternative land uses and clearly set forth impacts of those land uses • and possible mitigation measures to relieve the adverse impacts. That Planning Commission not recommend a change to the General Plan for the following development at this time: 1. Koll Center Newport 2. Emkay Newport Place 3. Aeronutronic Ford 4. San Diego Creek Sites 5. MacArthur Boulevard /Jamboree Site 6. North Ford. RESIDENTIAL SITES Nestbay Reduce allowable dwellings from 426 to 348 consistent with straw vote of October 5, 1978. . -23- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 INDEX Newporter North Reduce allowable dwellings from 704 to 440 consistent with straw vote of October 5, 1978 Freeway Reservation East Limit maximum number of dwellings to 100. Caltrans West Amend designation from Multiple- .Family Residential to Medium- Density Residential, with the maximum number of dwellings not to.exceed 64. Castaways Residential Site (40 a.) Reduce allowable dwellings from 320 to 225. consistent with straw vote of October 5, 1978. Newport Center Condos Site • Reduce allowable dwellings from 315 to 245. consistent with straw vote of October 5, 1978 (Reflected in Newport Center above.) Eastbluff Remnant Reduce allowable dwellings from 84 to 42 consistent with straw vote of October 5, 1978. Big Canyon Reduce allowable dwellings from 338 to 260 consistent with straw vote of October 5, 1978. Applies to total remaining development of Big Canyon. Baywood Expansion Limit maximum number of dwellings to 140. That Planning Commission not recommend a change to the General Plan for the following developments at this time: 1. Fifth Avenue Parcels . V I I I I I 12. Beeco Property 3. Roger's Gardens and Residential Triangle. -24- COMMISSIONERS 0 ROLL CALL 0 Ayes Noes FA I"93 City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 MINUTES INDEX Commissioner McLaughlin the maker of the motion the motion to allow only units in Newport Center. son responded that he pr now stands. inquired as to whether would consider amending 450 residential dwelling Commissioner Frederick - efers the motion as it Commissioner Balalis suggested that the wording of the motion be amended to provide that if the Transportation Element proves at a future date that it can handle the traffic generated by the total development of Newport Center, the 500,000 sq. ft. reduction in allowable Commercial /Office, or instead the 350 additional residential dwelling units proposed by The Irvine Company, may be added. Public hearing was reopened in connection with this item and Robert Shelton reappeared,before the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company and commented that 350 residential dwelling.u.nits are lesser.traffic generators than 500,000 sq. ft. of Commercial /Office. Mr. Shelton felt that the wording suggested by Commissioner Balalis is unnecessary inasmuch as development is already subject to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Community Development Director Hogan indicated that the traffic impact of future development would be covered by the motion on the floor. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard thereon,.the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Frederickson's motion was voted on and carried. Item #7 A proposed amendment to the Newport Beach General GENERAL Plan consisting of three parts as follows: PLAN AMENDMENT Part 1 78 -3 -A: An amendment to the Land Use 78 -3 and Residential Growth Elements to change the designation of a 4.5 -acre APPROVED R -1022 parcel on University Drive east of Irvine Avenue (Deane Property) from "Multiple- Family Residential" to "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial." -25- COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL Part 2 78 -3 -B: An amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements to Chang the designation of approximately 35 acres west of MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills Road from "Recreational and Environmenta Open Space" (Freeway Reservation) to "Medium- Density Residential." Part 3 78 -3 -C: An amendment to the Land Use Element to allow Retail /Service Commer- cial and residential as alternate uses to the existing "Administrative, Professional,.and Financial Commercial" designation within the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Area Plan district. With respect to 78 -3 -A, Community Development Director .Hogan advised that office development as proposed in this location might not meet the • criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance due to possible impact on intersections in the area. Therefore, Mr. Hogan advised that the Commission may wish to consider designating this site for Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial" with "Multi- Family Residential" as an alternate use. The multi - family development would need to mitigate noise factors from the airport and has not been approved by the Airport Land Use Commission; the alternative would have t pass the EIR test or the traffic phasing test. Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Keith Greer appeared before the Planning Commission on.behalf of The Irvine Company. Mr. Greer commented that he believes the Planning Commission addressed the allowable development of Big.Canyon in its previous action on General Plan Amendment 78 -2., which established a maximum of 260 DU's additional allowable in Big Canyon. Staff expressed.that 78 -3 -B represents a change to the General Plan map to indicate that "Medium - Density Residential" use would be allowed on the former freeway reservation in Big Canyon. The total development allowed in Big Canyon was addressed by the Planning.Commission under Genera Plan Amendment 78 -2. -26- MINUTES 1' INDEX COMMISSIONERS �R ®m��� City of Newport Beach F � CO • ti October 19, 1978 ROLL GALL Jim Dean, owner of the property in question for 78 -3 -A, appeared before the Planning Commission and requested that the additional use of "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial" be added to the use of "Multiple- Family Residential ", currently allowed by the General Plan. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard thereon, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made that Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration, and adopt Resolution N 1022, recommending to the City Council that Gen.eral Plan Amendment 78 -3 be adopted, includin the three parts as follows: 78 -3 -A: An amendment to the Land Use and Resi- dential Growth Elements to include "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial" as an alternate • use in addition to the current designa- tion of "Multiple- Family Residential" on a 4.5 acre parcel on University Drive east of Irvine Avenue (Deane Property). 78 -3 -B: An amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements to change the designation of approximately 35 acres west of MacArthur Boulevard betweei Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills Road from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" (Freeway Reservation), to . "Medium- Density Residential." 78 -3 -C: An amendment to the Land Use Element to allow "Retail /Service Commercial" anal "Residential" as alternate uses to the existing "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial" designation within the Old Newport Boulevard Specifi Area Plan district. Motion x Substitute motion was made that the original Ayes x motion be amended to eliminate reference to No x x x x x x 78 -3 -B, which motion failed. Ayes x x x x x x Commissioner Haidinger's original motion was vot, Noes x on and carried. -27- MINUTES J. d INDEX COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL Motion All Ayes 0 • Motion All Ayes MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 Request to remodel and expand an existing non- conforming single - family dwelling and antique shop in the M -1 District. Location: A portion of Lot 3, Block 239, Lan- CONTINUI caster's Addition, located at 505 TO 29th Street, on the northerly side of NOV. 9, 29th Street between Villa Way and 1978 Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. Zone: M -1 Applicant: Rick Lawrence, Newport Beach Owner: . Same as Applicant x Planning Commission continued this item to the meeting of November 9, 1978. Commissioner Balalis requested that the record show that this item has been continued on numerous occasions at the request of the applicant, and that this is the last time he intends to support a continuance of this matter. Request to permit a drive -up teller facility in . conjunction with a Universal Savings and Loan use in an existing.office building in Koll Center Newport. Location: A portion of Lot 3., Tract No'. 9063, located at 4901 Birch Street, on.the southeasterly corner of Birch Street and MacArthur Boulevard in Koll Center Newport. Zone: P -C Applicant: Universal Savings and Loan, Rosemead Owner: Aetna Life Insurance Co., Newport Beach x Planning Commission continued this item to the meeting-of November 9, 1978. EWE Item No We COMMISSIONERS . r ROLL CALL Motion Ayes x x Noes 0 MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 Request to establish one parcel of .land where two lots now exist so as to permit the conversion of residential units.into a residential condo- minium complex. Location: Lots 1090 and 1091, Tract No. 907, located at 117 Via Antibes, on the westerly corner of Via Antibes and Via Lido Nord on Lido Isle. Zone: R -3 Applicant: C..E.L.S. Corporation, Tustin Owners: Henry V. and Hazel J. Eastman, Tustin Engineer: Same.as Applicant Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Tallis Margrave, 161 Fashion Lane,. Tustin, appeared before the Planning Commission and concurred with the staff report, including the findings and conditions contained therein. There being no others desiring to._appear and be heard, the.public hearing was closed. Ix) I I Motion was made that Planning. Commission make the x x x x following findings: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal- Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium will be given 120 days written • notice.of intention to convert prior to termination of tenancy due to proposed conversion. -2'9- INDEX Item #10 RESUBDI- VISION NO. 608 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL 4. That each of the tenants of the proposed con( minium. will be given notice of an exclusive right to contract for the purchase of their respective units upon the same terms and conditions that such units will be initially offered to the general public or terms more favorable to the tenant. and approve Resubdivision No. 608, subject to thf following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That there shall be submitted a declaration c Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, setting forth an enforceable method of insuring the continued maintenance of the existing landscaping, fencing, residential structures and utility facilities as well as a requirement for any enforceable method of rehabilitation or replacement of the structui • on the site. In addition the C.C. & R.'s shall also include, for prospective owners, disclosures regarding sound transmission between units and the absence of sound attenuation materials or construction if sucl do not exist. The C.C. & R.'s shall also include a disclosure.of any common sewer line or other common utilities found,to service the condominium and the maintenance responsibilities of said utilities. Further• more, the City shall not be held responsible for any future problems with the subject utilities in.conjunction with the proposed conversion. 3. That each tenant of the proposed condominium shall be given 120 days written notice of intention to convert prior to termination of tenancy due to the proposed conversion. A copy of said written notice shall.be provide4 to the Director of Community Development as evidence that this condition has been meta 4. That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium shall.be given written notice of an exclusive right to.contract for the purch, of their respective units upon the same terms and conditions that such units will be initially offered to the general public or -30- MINUTES E •e is INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \� \9 \m \a \� \ \\ City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL October 19, 1978 INDEX terms more favorable to the tenant. The right shall run for a period of not less than sixty days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report issued pursuant to Section 11018.2 of the Business and Professional Code, unless the tenant gives prior written notice of his intention not to exercise the right. A copy of said written notice shall be.provided to the Director of Community Development as evidence that this condition has been met. 5. That a licensed electrical, plumbing and mechanical contractor shall review existing systems and certify their condition to the Building Official prior to conversion. 6. That all existing, fire protection equipment, such as, but not limited to, wet stand pipes, fire extinguishers, fire sprinkler systems, etc., shall be inspected.prior to conversion. 7. That existing geological and soil conditions shall be reviewed. Where evidence of question able geological or soil conditions are found to exist, the Building Official shall have the authority to require new soils' investigations. 8. That all dwelling units shall be required,to meet the minimum state standards for sound separation between dwelling units unless waived by the Planning Commission. 9. That all dwellings shall be provided with smoke detectors. 10. That consideration.shall be given to providing each dwelling unit with a separate electrical service. 11. That two accessible garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit at all times. Commissioner Beek requested that the record show that he opposed the motion because he feels that • policies regarding condominium conversions should be established prior to taking action on conversion applications. -31- COMMISSIONERS ROIL CALL • Motion Ayes Noes 40 XI IXIXIXIX ri MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 Request to establish one parcel of land where three lots now exist so as to permit the conver- sion of residential units into a residential condominium complex. Location: Lots 4, 5, and 6, Tract No. 1893, located at 1700 -1738 Westcliff Drive, on the northeasterly side of West- cliff Drive between Rutland Road and Buckingham Lane in the Westcliff area. Zone: R -3 Applicant: Vic Sherreitt, Balboa Island Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: William R. Haynes & Co., Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Vic Sherreitt appeared before the Planning Commission and concurred with the contents of the staff report. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed Motion was made that Planning Commission make the following findings: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 o.f the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all.applicable. general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision .presents no problems from a. planning standpoint. 3. That the proposed.nonconforming features on the site that will be created from combining three lots into one building site is only a technicality, and presents no problems from a building or planning standpoint. -32- INDEX Item #11 RESUBDI- VISION NO. 609 APPROVED C NDI- TIONALLY COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL 4. That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium will be given 120 days written notice of intention to convert prior to termination of tenancy due to the proposed conversion. 5. That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium will be given notice of an exclusive right to contract for the purchase of their respective units upon the same term! and conditions that such units will be initially offered to the general public or terms more favorable to the tenant. and .approve Resubdivision No. 609, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That there shall be submitted a declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, setting forth an enforceable method of • insuring the continued maintenance of the existing landscaping, fencing, residential structures and utility facilities as well as a requirement for any enforceable method of rehabilitation or replacement of the structures on the site. In addition, the C.C. & R.'s shall also include, for prospect, owners, disclosures regard'i'ng sound . transmis! between units and the absence of sound attenuation materials or construction if sucl do not exist. The C.C. & R.'s shall also include a disclosure of any common.sewer line or other common utilities found to serv- t.he condominium and the maintenance responsi• bilities of said utilities. Furthermore, the City shall not be held. responsible for any future problems with the subject utiliti4 .in conjunction with the proposed conversion. 3. That each tenant.of the proposed condominium shall be given 120 days written notice of intention to convert prior to termination of tenancy due to the.proposed conversion. A copy of said written notice shall be provide to the Director of Community Development as • evidence that this condition has been met. -33- MINUTES �s INDEX COMMISSIONERS ROIL CALL 0 n U MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 4. That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium shall be given written.notice of an. exclusive right to contract for the purchase. of their respective units upon the same terms, and conditions that such units will be initially offered to the general public or terms more favorable to the tenant. The right shall run for a period of not less than sixty days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report issued pursuant to Section 11018.2 of the Business and Professional Code, unless the tenant gives prior written notice of his intention not to .exercise the right. A copy of said.written notice shall be provided to the Director of Community Development as evidence that this condition has been met. 5. That a.licensed electrical, plumbing and mechanical contractor shall review existing systems and certify their condition to the Building Official prior to conversion. 6. That all existing fire protection equipment, such as but not limited to, wet stand pipes, fire extinguishers, fire sprinkler systems, etc., shall be inspected prior to conversion. 7. That existing geological.and soil conditions shall be reviewed. Where evidence of questionable geological or soil conditions are found to exist, the Building Official shall have the authority to require new soils' investigations. 8. That all dwelling. units shall be required to meet the minimum state standards for sound separation between dwelling units unless waived by the Planning Commission. 9. That all dwell.ings shall be provided with smoke detectors. 10. That consideration,shall.be given to providing each dwelling unit with a separate electrical service. 11. That one accessible carport space shall be provided for each dwelling unit at all times. -34- INDEX COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL 0 11 MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 Commissioner Beek requested that the record show that he opposed the motion because he feels that policies regarding condominium conversions should be established prior to taking action on conversion applications. Request to permit the construction of a two -story office retail complex in a Specific Plan Area, where a specific plan has not been adopted, and the acceptance of an environmental document. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested, since a portion of the required parking spaces are compact automobile spaces. Location: A portion of Lot 17, and Lot .18, Block 9, Tract No. 27, located at 419' North Newport Boulevard, on the westerly side of North Newport Boule- vard between 15th Street and Hospital Road, adjacent to Newport Heights. Zone: C -1 Applicant: Christopher E. Hobson, Santa Ana Owner: Same as Applicant AND Request to establish one building site and eliminate an interior lot line where one lot and a portion of a second lot now exist so as to permit.commercial development on the property. Location: A portion of Lot 17, and Lot 18, Block 9, Tract No. 27, located at 419 North Newport Boulevard, on the westerly side of North Newport Boule- vard between 15th Street and Hospital Road, adjacent to Newport Heights. Zone: C -1 Applicant: Christopher E., Hobson., Santa Ana Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Costa Mesa -35- INDEX Item #12 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY Item #13 I- APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY, COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL Motion I 'I x A11 Ayes City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 MINUTES INDEX Agenda Items Nos. 12 and 13 were heard concur- rently because of their relationship. Public hearing was opened in connection with these items and Chris Hobsen, Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and concurred with the recommendations set forth in the staff reports. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made that Planning Commission make the following findings with reference to Site Plan Review No. 17: -36- 1. The proposed development is a high - quality proposal and will not adversely affect the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. • 2. The proposed development does not adversely affect the public benefits derived from the expenditures of public funds for improve - ment and beautification of street and public facilities within the area. 3.. The proposed development promotes the maintenance of superior site location characteristics adjoining major thoroughfares .of City -wide importance. 4. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 5. Adequate parking spaces and related vehicular circulation will be provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 6.. That the use of compact automobile parking spaces on the property in question 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 and be detrimental or . injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the p °roposed modification for compact parking spaces is no -36- COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROLL CALL consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. and approve Site Plan Review No. 17, subject to the following.conditions of approval: 1.. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted in Condition of Approval No. 2 below. 2. That the proposed offstreet parking lot sha' be revised to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer as follows: a. That a minimum of one standard -sized parking space for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area shall be provided on th4 subject property; and b.. That 10- foot -wide landscape planters shall be required along the North • Newport Boulevard frontage of the site, except at the approved 28 -foot driveway. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjacent stree and properties. 4. That all signs shall meet the requirements of the Sign Code. 5. That an on -site fire hydrant location shall be approved by the Fire Department. 6. That approval. of Site Plan Review No. 17 be contingent on approval of Resubdivision No. 610. 7. That all conditions of approval of Resubdi- vision No. 610 be fulfilled. 8. That sight distance for the driveway be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works. Department. -37- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS • ROLL CALL • City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 AND That Planning Commission make the following findings with reference to Resubdivision No. 610: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision'. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. and approve Resubdivision No. 610, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the remaining street improvements (curb and gutter, sidewalk, and street pavement) be completed along the North Newport Boule- vard frontage to grades provided.by the Public Works Department.. 4. That a standard subdivision agreement and surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record the parcel map before the public improvements are completed (Parcel Map must be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permit). NOTE: Sewage disposal is by the Costa Mesa Sani- tary District. ffiffla MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach October 19, 1978 ROIL CAII 1111111 INDEX Item #14 Request to clarify Use Permit No. 1683 (Amended) USE PER - as approved by the Planning Commission May 15, 1975, and determining i.f Roger's on Gardens MIT N0. 1683 is in violation of said Use Permit in the sale of antique furniture, kitchen ware, housewares, gifts, for art, and other engaging lamps, CONTINUED TO items which are normally used indoors, and; for NOV. 9, allowing trees to grow to a height in excess of 1978 289 feet above mean sea level. Location: Parcel 1 o Parcel Map 81 -06 (Resubdivision No. 485) and a portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 2301 San Joaquin Hills Road, on the southerly side of San Joaquin Hills Road between MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed extension of San Miguel. Drive, adjacent to Harbor View Hills. Zone: R -A Applicant: Roger's Gardens Newport Center, Corona del Mar Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Motion I I I I I IxI I Planning Commission continued this item to the All Ayes meeting of November 9, 1978. Item #15 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allows a commercial nursery and related retail sales including the sale of garden furni- USE PER - MIT NO. 1683 ture, and the acceptance of an environmental document. Said amendment proposes to add CONTINUEI TO 136V. 9, approximately 9,880 square feet of structure to the. site.and facilities for the parking of 122 1978 additional automobiles. Said amendment further proposes to permit commercial sales consistent within the nursery industry including florist sale and services, books, pictures, films, and post- cards which relate to horticultural material and holiday decorative items, including Christmas ornaments. Additional patio accessories are to include.antiques, dinnerware, and kitchen and -39- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach 1 '3 October 19, 1978 ROLLCALLI Jill III INDEX Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes culinary i.tems associated with outdoor living or the garden kitchen /dining room concept. Location: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 81 -06 (Resub- division 'No. 485) and a portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 2301 San Joaquin Hills Road, on the southerly side of San Joaquin Hills Road between MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive, adjacent to Harbor View Hills. Zone: R -A Applicant: Roger's Gardens Newport Center, Corona del Mar Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Planning Commission continued this item to the meeting of November 9, 1978. A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1023 R -1023 setting a public hearing for December 7, 1978 to consider a proposed amendment to Section 20.10.025 B. of the Municipal Code pertaining to fireplace and chimney encroachments. There:be.ing no further busines an Commission adjourned at 12x20 a m GEORG K , ecretary City f Newport Beach Planning Commission -46-