Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/1980REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSIONERS Place: City Council Chambers MINUTES Time: 7:30 p.m. X Date: October 23, 1980 3 , I x y > City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Present X X X X X Absent * Chairman Haidinger was absent. * * * `J 0 EX-OFFICIO-MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrato Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Senior Planner Donald Webb, Assistant.City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary * * * Staff advised that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 1980, have not as yet been completed. Therefore, approval of subject minutes was continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of November 6, 1980. * * * Request to approve Final Tract Map 10625 Sub - dividi =ng 10.615 acres into 21 Tots for residential purposes, one lettered lot for private street purposes,(Lot A) and one lettered lot for private landscape and open space (Lot B). LOCATION: ZONE: APPLICANT: OWNER: ENGINEER: A portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1401 San Miguel.Drive, between MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed extension of San Miguel Drive, southwesterly of Roger's Gardens. R -A, R -1 -B The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Same as Applicant Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach -1- Item #1 FINAL TRACT MAP 10625 APPROVED CONDI- T T RTI I I 'v Motion COMMISSIONERS 7 N 7C N r October 23, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Planning Director Hewicker stated that there is a condition of approval on the tentative map that requires that the location of the vehicular access to Lot. 21 shall be reviewed by City staff prior t the filing of the final map. He referred to a memo dated October 23, 1980, from the Public Work Department which described the recommended vehi- cular access and related conditions placed on Lot 21. Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing the Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission and urged approval of the final map with the finding and conditions.of the staff report. Motion was made that the Commission approve Final Tract Map No. 10625 with the following finding and conditions: FINDING: • 1. That proposed Final Map substantially confori with the Tentative,Map.and with all changes permitted and all requirements imposed as condi.tion to its,acceptance. CONDITIONS: 1. That all remaining conditions of Tentative Tract Map No. 10625, as amended by City Council on May 14, 1979 and October 14, 1980 be fulfilled. 2. That all mitigation measures described in the Initial Study (items l through 16) shall be incorporated into the final design of the project, unless otherwise modified by a specific condition of approval. Commissioner Beek amended the motion to restore the original condition that San Miguel Drive be extended only from its present terminus to the entrance of the Harbor Point residential develop- ment. Planning Director Hewicker stated that at the last City Council meeting, it was determined that the extension of San Miguel Drive was neces- sary and the final map:was submitted to the City on that basis. -2- ROLL CALL October 23, 1980 dt �iKD y y 3 1 City of Newport Beach Commissioner Thomas asked staff why the map is back to the Planning Commission for review. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the City's Subdivision Code requires that the Planning Com- mission review the final map for substantial compliance with the approved tentative map. He stated that the staff is currently working on an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance in which the review of such maps will be taken from the Planning Commission and- given -to the Planning Department staff. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the .tenta- tive map as originally approved by the Planning Commission. had San Miguel Drive extended to Mac - Arthur Boulevard. The City Council at that time directed that the extension of San Miguel be removed with the provision that at such time.the City desired to extend San Miguel,.the matter be brought back to the City Council. At.their last meeting., the City Council made the determination • that the extension of San Miguel was needed. Therefore, the subdivider su.bmitted the final map with the extension of Sari Miguel Drive included on said map.. Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Burnham,..Assistant City Attorney if his amendment to the motion was out.of order. Mr. Burnham stated that this was correct. He stated that the City Council at their last meeting eliminated the conflict betwee two conditions of the approved tentative map, which was resolved by directing the extension of San Miguel Drive. He stated that the Planning Commission does not have the ability to impose additional conditions at this time. Commissioner Allen stated that she would have to abstain from the vote because she did not feel that she had;the technical expertise which is re- quired to approve a final map. Ayes X X X Commissioner McLaughlin's motion was now voted Noes K on, which MOTION CARRIED. Abstain X X Absent -3- COMMISSIONERS 333 N October 23, 1980 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Request to amend an existing Use Permit so as to Item #2 perm.i,t the expansion of an..existing restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages which uses a USE P.ERMI combination of on -site parking, in -lieu parking NO. 1783 and private off -site parking .to meet.existing and expanded parking requirements. (Amended) LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 79 -50 (Resubdivision No. 493), located APPROVED . at 112 McFadden Place, on the CONDI- northeasterly side of McFadden TIONALLY Place between Court Avenue and Wes.t Balboa Boulevard on McFadden. Square. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Ava.Lana, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Raymond Smith. • The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Raymond Smith, the owner of the property, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Smith.stated that he would be willing to .,close the take- out °bakery and sandwich shop.at 6 :00 p.m..which would open up:more. parking spaces for the proposed use. He stated that the applicant does not want to pay in -lieu fees for 5 additional parking spaces, because there would be sufficient parking without those spaces. He stated that they are in agreement with the provision of a parking attendant. He also stated that they are recommend- ing that the proposed area of expansion open at 5:00 p.m. rather than 6:00 p.m. for the summer months. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Smith to'explain the expansion being requested. Mr. Smith stated that the expansion is being requested to create more of a d'inin'g house and that there wi.11 be adequate parking without the additional 5 in -lieu parking spaces. Mr. Smi.th stated that the sand= wich shop's main volume.is in.the daytime, whereas he proposed dining room addition would be a night ime operation only.. ILE 4MISSIONERS October 23, 1980 N W w City of Newport Beach 0 Motion 0 Commissioner Allen asked staff if the four parkin spaces.of the sandwich shop should be counted as being available if the proposed use opened at . 5:00 p.m. and the sandwich shop closed a.t 6:00 p.m. Planning Director Hewicker stated that with the one hour overlap., the spaces would still be considered to be available to the proposed use. Commissioner Allen stated that if the sandwich shop closed at 5:00 p.m., the applicant would actually,be only one space short of what is required. Commissioner Beek asked Mr. •Smith to explain the usage of the parking attendant. Mr. Smith stated that the parking is behind the building off of Co Avenue and across the -alley northerly. of.the prop An attendant on duty can easily control and main- tain both areas. Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Smith why they are requesting a 5:00 p.m. opening, rather.than 6:00 p.m. Mr. Smith stated that the 5:00 p.m. opening would give the applicant the latitude to develop a more viable business. Commissioner Beek referred to Page 5 of the staff report wherein it states, "In March of 1980 ". Staff responded that the line should be corrected to read, "In March of 1978 ". X Motion was made that the Planning.Commission approve.Use Permit No. 1783 (Amended), subject to the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed expansion is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will: not have any significant environmental impact, providing that parking demands are met. 3. The Police Department has indicated.that they do not contemplate any problems. -5- t tY COMMISSIONERS October 23, 1980 MINUTES 5 In y N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1783 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this cas be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of per - sons residing and working in.the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the gen- eral welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con.- formance with the approved plot plan and .floo plan. 2. That the approved supplemental parking agree- ment for 12 parking spaces for the restaurant .. use during evening hours on the adjoining .property shall be maintained. 3. That 18 "in-lieu" parking spaces shall be purchased from the ,City on an annual basis for • the duration of the restaurant use on the site. (Note: This condition was subsequently amend. to waive the additional 5.parking spaces re- quired by the expanded restaurant use.) 4. That all exterior lighting and signs shall be approved by the Planning Director. 5. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets, alleys or adjoining properties. 6. That the.area of expans.ion shall not be opene for business until 5:00 p.m. daily. 7. That the passageway between the existing din- ing area and the proposed expansion area be designed in such a manner as to facilitate limiting service to the existing dining area until 6:00 p.m. Said passageway shall be approved by the Planning Department. 8. That the hours of operation in the expanded restaurant be limited to the hours between. 10:00 a.m, to 2:00 a.m. • 9. That the off -site parking lot shall be ser- viced by a parking attendant after 5:00 p.m. . during the summer months to ensure that the parking spaces are available to restaurants patrons. -6- COMMISSIONERS October 23, 1980 MINUTES =r� �n I i 51. WE W City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I INDEX Commissioner Beek asked if the motion included the early closing of the bakery and sandwich shop. Commissioner Balalis stated that the motion did not include that stipulation because the sandwich shop should be left open for anyone in the area that may want a sandwich. Commissioner Beek stated that it would seem logical to close the sandwich shop at 5:00 p.m: to legally release the four parking spaces to the proposed use. Commis - sioner Balal:is stated that the four parking spaces have .probably never been used by the sandwich shop anyway. U Request to construct an 11,000 sq. ft. office Item #4 building on property in a Specific Plan Area where.a specific plan has not been adopted, USE PERM] and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. NO. 1957 AND -7- APPROVED Lam- TIONALLY Plan.nin.g Director Hewic -k-er suggested waiv.ing thew di- tion:al required spaces if -,the Commission so desire J. . Amendment X Commi.ssioner Balalis amended Condition No. 3 to read as.follows: "That 18 "in -lieu" parking spaces shall be purchased from the City on an annual basis °for the duration of the restaurant use on the site, and that the additional 5 parking spaces required by the expanded restaurant be • waived." Commissioner Thomas stated that if a modification should ever occur on these properties, the parking issue would again be looked into. Ayes X X X. X Amended motion by Commissioner.Balalis was now Noes X voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent * * * Item #3. Request to consider a traffic study for pro - posed 11;000 sq. ft. ± office building. STUDYIC AND APPROVED U Request to construct an 11,000 sq. ft. office Item #4 building on property in a Specific Plan Area where.a specific plan has not been adopted, USE PERM] and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. NO. 1957 AND -7- APPROVED Lam- TIONALLY COMMISSIONERS1 October 23, 1980 MINUTES: x 7 i N 7c t 0 0 M INDEX _ Request to establish one building, site and Item #5 . eliminate an interior lot line where two lots now .exist so as to permit office development on RESUB- the property. DIVISION N0. 667 LOCATION: Lots 14 and 15, Block 9, Tract 27, located at 441 North Newport Boule - APPROVED vard, on the westerly side of CONDI- North Newport Boulevard, between TIONALLY . Bolsa Avenue and Westminster Avenue - in the "Old Newport Boulevard" area. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: National- Benvenuti,'Newport Beach OWNER:. Same as applicant Agenda items Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. I The public hearing.was opened in connection with these items and Mr. Thomas..Channell, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated that they concur with the staff report findings and conditions. Commissioner Beek stated tha -t- Exhibit "A ", Page 5 Condition No. 2 of the staff report regarding the Orange County Airport, the word "should" to b replaced.with the word "shall Commissioner Beek asked if the construction of a 3- story, building,.without elevators, is in accor- dance with the Building Code. Planning Director Hewi -cker stated that the Building Code does not require an elevator for a 3 -story building, but does require two forms of access to the third floor. He also stated that these items will have to meet the Building Code requirements. Commissioner Beek expressed his concern regarding the.steep slope on the back.of the property, whic steeper than a.2 to l slope. He stated that this has been included in the buildable area. Plannin Director Hewicker stated that prohibiting devel- opment on buildable area.with slopes greater than is rea COMMISSIONERS October 23, 1980 MINUTES n y N I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 2 to 1, is meant for slopes that are created subsequent to the development. I:n this particular instance, there is already a slope towards Old Newport Boulevard. An existing structure on the property will be removed and replaced with a new. building. If the developer were proposing to create a new slope greater than 2 to 1, this may not be allowed. Mr.. George Baker, owner of. the property directly, across from the proposed building at 434'.N'.`Newpor Boulevard, appeared before the Commission and stated that this was a great proposal for the immediate neighborhood and the community. Commis- sioner Allen concurred. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission appro e.. All Ayes XK X .X X Use Permit No. 1957, Resubdivision No. 667 and the Absent * Traffic Study with the following findings and conditions: • USE PERMIT -NO. 1957 1. The approval of Use Permit No. 1957 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or general welfare of the City. 2. The proposed office building is in keeping with the desired character of "Old Newport Boulevard" the Specific Plan Area as identifie by the General Plan. 3. The proposed building is consistent with the General Plan policies. 4. The proposed use will not preclude the attain- ment of the` "Old Newport Boulevard" Specific Plan Area objectives stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. • 5. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. -9- 1MISSIONERS October 23, 1980 MINUTES.• x y i�xK5 w N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Conditions: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with.the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevations. 2. The following disclosure statement for the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport shall be included in . all leases or sub- leases for space in the .project and shall be included in any -Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be.re- corded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: a) The Orange County Airport may not be able • to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services;. b,) When.an alternate air - facility is available, a complete phaseout of jet service may occur at the Orange County. Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the Orange County Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will not actively oppose any actions taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the Orange County Airport. 3. Final design.of the project shall provide for the incorporation -of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -. using facilities. 4. The final design of the project shall. .provide for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. • 5. The applicants shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. -10- I 1MISSIONNERSI October 23, 1980 MINUTES 3 3 w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 6. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches,.and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 7. The landscape plan shall place heavy em- phasis on the use of drought - resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - wateri.ng. 8. 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. 9. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 667 be fulfilled. RESUBDIVI:SION NO. 667 • 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, in that the merging of the 2 parcels into one building. -site permits no more intensity of use than would have been permitted on the individual lots. 3. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses.. 4. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 23, 1980 N City Of Newport Beach CALL JINDEX 2. That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by ordinance.and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain Building Permits or to record the Parcel Map prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That all improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement) be completed along the north Newport_Avenue frontage. Curb grades will be provided by the Public Works Department. TRAFFIC STUDY Findings: 1. That 'a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter • 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy 5 -1, and 2. The traffic during any 2.5 hour peak traffic' period on each leg.of each critical inter- section will be increased less_'than 1% by traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period. Request to remodel and enlarge an existing r.esi= -Item #6 dential apartment and construct one new resi- dential apartment on the second story over an USE PERMI' existing commercial building located in the C -l' NO. 1958 District. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested since a portion of the required APPROVED parking spaces are tandem spaces (where the ONE DI— Municipal Code requires,.that all parking spaces TIUN ALLY shall be. independently accessible and usable) and encroach 5 feet into the required'.10 foot rear setback adjacent to a 15 foot wide alley. • Nlillli -12- COMMISSIONERS October 23, 1980 MINUTES: �$o 13. y CEO City of Newport Beach CALL INDEX AND Request to establish one parcel of land and Item #7,. eliminate an interior lot line where two lots now exist so as to permit the remodel and ex- RESUB- pans.ion of the residential portion of a combined DIVISION. residential- commercial development in the C -1 N0. 668 District. APPROVED LOCATIONi Lots 3 and 4; Block 9, Balboa Island, CONDI- located at 504 South Bay Front, on TIONALLY the northeasterly side of South Bay Front between Opal Avenue and Agate Avenue on Balboa Island. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Union Oil Company, John Broughten OWNER: Union Oil Company • Agenda Items,Nos. 6 and 7 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. Mr. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, suggested to the Commission that Page 8 of the staff report, Finding No. 4 be amended to read, "That the establishment of tandem parking spaces on the site and the parking space encroachment into the required 10 foot rear yard will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental. . ". He stated that staff has recommended that some of the parking spaces be revised and in one case, one of the parking spaces still encroaches approximately six.inches into the required 10 foot rear yard. The public hearing was opened in connection with these items and Mr. John Broughten appeared before the Commission. Mr. Broughten stated that they are willing.to comply with the parking..require- ments. In response to a question posed by commissioner • Allen, Mr. Broughten stated that the gas tanks, which are above ground,will be remove, d entirely. -13- CALL October 23, 1980 1311" N I City d Newport Beach Mr. Brou,ghten spoke with regard to the 10 foot front yard. He stated that the 10 foot setback for the residential use as required in the C -R District will make.an incongruous building which is not aesthetic.to the area. He stated that an atrium of approximately 15 feet by 15 feet has been designed in the center of the building for open space. Mr. Layco.ck stated that staff did not recommend that the 10 foot setback be maintained. The staff reviewed other use permits of commercial - residential uses which have been approved by the Planning Commission on Balboa Island. The Com- mission never did require the 10 foot setback, but did require some portion of the front yard to be useable open space. Condition No. .5 re- commends how this area should be calculated. Staff suggests that each dwelling unit provide . a private open deck or balcony-of-approximately 72 square feet for useable open space along the . front'of each unit. Commissioner Balalis stated that a setback would not be.appropriate if the'other buildings immedi- ately adjacent are on the ~property line. Mr. Laycock stated that the commercial building westerly of the site is at the setback Tine and the re.sidential unit easterly of the property is set back approximately 5 feet from the front pro - perty line. Mr. Br.oughten stated that the proposed atrium is also designed to provide dual access as well as open space. Commissioner Allen stated that the proposed atrium would be surrounded by the building. She stated that the problem is that the open space is to be a visual open space for the public view around the building. Mr. Laycock added that in the past, the @ommission has deter- mined that the open space also be useable. Commissioner Thomas asked if the termination of the.gas docks was separate from this project. Mr Layc.ock stated that it is a separate matter, but was discussed with these cases in that it is bayward of the site. • Commissioner Thomas asked staff how the loss of the fuel dock is in conformance with the Local Coastal Program. Planning Director Hewicker state -14- ROLL 0 E October 23, 1980. � W D ,F City of Newport Beach w� p MINUTES that the fuel dock is a water dependent use. The residential use of the property is not a water dependent use. He stated that nothing mandates that the fuel. dock remain on.the property. If the Local Coastal Program were in effect, replacin a water dependent use with a non -water dependent use would-still require a use permit.to make the change. He added that the fuel dock will be re- placed with boat slips which will be available to the public. Commissioner Thomas stated that he felt removing the fuel dock does not technically conform to the Local Coastal Program and that the paragraph on Page 2 of the staff report regarding conformance to the Draft Local Coastal Plan should be deleted. Commissioner Beek stated that the staff report indicates that an application has been submitted to the Marine Department to terminate the fuel dock operation and redesign the dock facilities for the exclusive use of the adjoining residential units on the site. He stated that in no way will these be public or visitor serving facilities, but rather strictly residential facilities. commissioner Balalis started that in the.past, the Commission has been concerned with.retaining marine uses for the community. He stated that in this particular case; Mr.. Broughten has no. choice, because the Union Oil Company has stated that they will no longer be in business in that area. He stated that the LCP has not made pro- visions for future fuel docks. The current City Codes do not permit fuel docks in many of the areas. He added that provisions need to made for fuel.do:cks, if there are to be 10;000 boats in the harbor. commissioner.Thomas stated °that in essence, the regulation passed on coastal dependent uses is non - functional. He stated that this is a good example of the problem. commissioner McLaughlin suggested that this issue be discussed during the LCP hearing. Commissioner Beek stated that this proposal is a complete violation of the R -1.5 standards that the Commission has been trying to maintain on. Balboa Island. He stated that the parking should -15- October 23, 1980 MINUTES 51 y y ity of Newport Beach INDEX ROLL CALL be counted in accordance with the residential standards as part of the floor area of the projec , since half of the proposal will be developed as residential. Planning .Director.Hewicker stated that this pro- posal is in the C -1 District. The Zoning Ordinance specifies that a residential use is a permitted use subject to a use permit. When evaluating the use permit for.residential use in a commercial district, the development standards which are most appropriate apply. In this particular case, because of the mixture of commercial and residen- tial, the C -R Development Standards were utilized: Mr. Laycock stated that the C -R Standards allows for•the.total gross floor area exclusive of parkin area in all structures on any site shall be limited to 1.5 times the buildable area. Commissioner Beek stated that in view of the fact that this is a small island of commercial in the • middle of a large area of R -1.5, the appropriate residential standards to apply would be 11-1.5. He also stated that he concurred with the state- ments by Commissioner Thomas on the fuel docks. Commissioner Allen stated that according to the letter sent by the Balboa Island Improvement Asso iation, the project is under the R -1.5 allowable floor area and adheres to all City Building Codes Commissioner Beek stated that this 1.5 is compute on the basis of not having a front or a side set - back. The R -1.5 residential district has sub - stantial setbacks all around. 0 Commissioner.Allen asked staff if the 10 foot rea yard setback was deducted, would the building sti be under the R -1.5 allowable floor area. Staff concurred. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Laycock stated that the only setback in the C -1 District is a 10 foot rear setback. Commissioner Beek stated that the Commission is to exercise discretion on use.permits. In this case, the character of development on Balboa Island needs to be protected. He stated that -16- CALL Motion Ayes X Noes 1IXI* Absent Motion Ayes Noes Absent • WX N �F N 7 October 23, 1980 on Beach MINUTES even though it is in the commercial district and not technically required, the building needs to be considerably smaller with better open space. We stated that on that basis he would make the following motion: Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 1958 and Resubdivision No. 668, which MOTION FAILED. X Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1958 and Res.ubdivision No. 668 subject to the.fol.low.in X X X X findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED. * USE PERMIT -_NO. 1958 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 environmental impact. 3. With exception of the 10 foot front setback for the residential portion of the building and with the proposed open space revisions recommended by staff, the proposed developmen meets or exceeds all of the development stan- dards of the C -R District. 4. That the establishment of tandem parking spaces on the site and the parking space en croachment into the required 10 foot rear yar will not, 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 neigh- borhood 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 modi- fication is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. • 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1958 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, -17- October 23, 1980 x X 0 City of Newport Beach CALL morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing. and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the nei- ghborhood or the genera welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan, floor._ plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That parking space No. 9, shown on the sub- mitted plot plan, be deleted. 3. That parking space Nos. 6 and 11, shown on the. submitted plot plan,.be moved forward on the site 4.5 feet and parking space Nos. 5 and.10 be moved forward at least 1.5 feet. 4. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 668 . shall be fulfilled. 5. That.the applicant shall-provide each dwelling unit useable open space along the South Bay Front frontage of the property. Said open space shall consist of private open decks or balconies, equivalent to an area calculated by six feet times 50 percent of the dwelling unit frontage. 6. That parking spaces Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 11, as shown on the submitted plot plan, shall be reserved for the exclusive use of,the resi- dential apartments. Said parking spaces shall be appropriately signed as "residential tenant parking only ". 7. That a minimum of six (6) on -site parking spaces be maintained at all times for the commerical use of the property. 8. That all ten (10) off- street parking spaces shall only be used for vehicular storage. RESUBDIVISION NO. 668 • Findings: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all -18- COMMISSIONERS October 23, 1980 MINUTES ID each x w S City of New ort B INDEX ROLL. CALL 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. Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be. constructed as re- quiredrby Ordinance.and the Public Works Department. 3. That each unit have individual sewer laterals and water services unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. rI L C� Request to consider an amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community Traffic Phasing Plan for a proposed 17,000 square feet office condominium project and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. AND To permit the establishment of a single building site for office condominium purposes so as to permit the construction of a 17,000 square feet t office condominium project located in the Newport Place Planned Community. LOCATION: ZONE: APPLICANT: OWNER: TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 87 -50 (Res.ubdivision No. 531), located at 1101 Quail.Street between Spruce Avenue and Dove Street in the Newport Place Planned Community P -C Lucas Development Corporation, Newport Beach Same as Applicant Herman Kimmel and Associates -19- Item #8' TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN APPROVED CONDI- TIONTLLY item #9" RESUB -' D. VISION NO. 661 APPROVED CONDI TIONALLY. )MMISSIONERS October 23, 1980 MINUTES x w �[) �D y City of Newport Beach INDEX Agenda Items Nos. 8 and 9 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. The public hearing was opened in connection with these items and Mr. Charles Hofmann, representing the applicant and the owner, appeared before the Commission and urged approval of the Traffic Phasing Plan and Resubdivision No. 669. Commissioner Allen asked staff how this relates to the history of the overall density reduction. Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that with the approval of the original traffic phasing plan for Newport Place, there was a reduction in-permitted square footage in terms of 24 percent for the Emkay properties and. one or two of the other large vacant sites. The proposed development in this case, comes out of what was designated at that time as expansion area. • Commissioner Beek stated that the standard waiver for the Orange County.Airport should be included in the conditions for approval. Commissioner MtLaughlin.co.ncurred.and stated that she would include this in her motion for approval. Motion X Motion was made to accept and certify the En- All Ayes X X X YX X vironmental Document and'app.rove Resubdivision. Absent * No. 669 and Amendment No. 2-of the Phasing Plan, subject to: the: findings and conditions as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: 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 decisions on this project. 2. That based upon the information-contained in the environmental document, the proposed pro - ject will not have a significant environmental • impact, the project subject to the conditions Listed below incorporates sufficient mitigation -20- COMMISSIONERS October 2 3, 1980 MINUTES 5' a I N � N y City of New rt Beach INDEX. ROLL CALL measures so that any presently anticipated negative environmental effects of the project would be eliminated. TRAFF,IC.PHASING PLAN .Findings: 1. That environmental documentation on this pro- posed project has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K -3 and that its contents have been considered in decision on this project. 2. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Newport Place. 3.. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projected • traffic at time of completion and the capacity of affected intersections. That the applicant has taken into consideratio in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic ont less impact arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. 3nditions: That the occupancy of the proposed development shall not occur prior to 1981. That the total floor area of the proposed building shall not exceed 17,000 square feet of net floor area. 3. Final design of the proposed project shall . provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other . water using facilities. 4. Prior to the occupancy of the proposed struc- ture, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes for the site shall be developed and approved by the Plannin Department. . -21- CALL WISSIONERS October 23, 1980 City of Newport Beach 5. The applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all parking areas. 6. The landscape plan of the existing site shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect The existing landscape program shall be modified to include the concerns of Condition! 7 and 8 below to the maximum extent practicab' that can maintain the character of the existi landscape program of the site and the Newport Place Planned Community. Any change(s) in said existing program as a result of this. review shall be phased and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 7. The landscape plan _shall include a maintenanc.. program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. I 8. The landscape plan shall place.h.ea.vy emphasis on.the use of drought - resistant native vege- tation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over- watering. 9. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 10. The following disclosure statement for the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport shall be included in all leases or sub - leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenant! Conditions and Restrictions.which may be re- corded against the property. Disclosure- Statement: The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: a) The - Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services; • b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport; -22- ROLL 0 MINUTES October 23, 1980 m 51 F11,911 City Of 7 i INDEX c) The City of Newport. Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the Orange County Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will not actively oppose any actions taken by the City of Newport .Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the Orange County Airport. RESUBDIV -ISION NO. 669 Findings: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport -Beach Municipal Code, 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. Conditions: 1. That a Parcel Map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a 6 foot wide P.C.C. sidewalk be..construc ted along Quail Street frontage of the propert 4. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee the satisfactory completion of public improve= ments, if it is desired to record the Parcel Map prior to completion of the public improve- ments. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m. -23- COMMISSIONERS October 23, 1980 MINUTES .o g 7 i i/1 7c N ROLL Z t. Beach Consideration of proposed Land Use Plan and Development Policies for the Local Coastal Program. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Commissioner Allen referred staff to Page 4 of . the October 23rd staff report and stated that she had wanted a statement from 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code to provide that in order to grant a use permit, "The Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, 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. Mr. Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, stated that at the time of zoning and implementation, a list will be drafted for the findings to be made. The general use permit finding will definitely be included because all use permits are required to make that finding. Commissioner Allen stated that she is concerned about this clause in any case, whether the Commission shall be granting a waiver of parking or granting a density increase along the beach. Mr. Lenard concurred. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS Commissioner Thomas stated that he ha.s met with the staff, the Fish and Game Department, and will eventually meet with The Irvine Company to try to work out a more specific arrangement in identifying what is an environmentally sensitive habitat area. He stated that he would like to reserve the .right to bring back the maps at a later date that will define this. Commissioner McLaughlin suggested adding maps that would de- fine Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. • 1 1 1! 1 1 1 1 -24- INDEX nti w 3 � tom„ 7C N EM October 23, 1980. on MINUTES : Planning.Director Hewicker stated that with res- pect to the preservation of Buck Gully, Morning Canyon and the.Newporter North Site, he is concerned with the ability to maintain the re- quired sedimentation.control and drainage facilit in these drainage areas. -He stated that from ti.m to time, it will be necessary to clean out the sedimentation basins in order to keep them func- tionaly. He stated that if these basins are not maintained, there may be major slope failure in these areas. Planning Director Hewicker cautioned the Commissi not to preclude the ability of the City to perfor the required maintenance in these areas. He suggested that a policy be drafted which would allow for the maintenance of the required de_ silting basins and drainage courses. INDEX Commissioner Thomas suggested the wording, "That facilities that have been constructed specifically • for desilting,.sediment control shall be exempt from environmentally sensitive habitat regulations Other than the Newporter North Site, most of the other areas are natural drainage courses. Planning Director Hewicker stated that some have been constructed specifically for drainage.as well as sedimentation._ Mr. Don Webb, Assistant. City Engineer stated that there is a.s.mall area at the corner of MacArthur and Jamboree Road between two drainage pipes which is a low area. He stated that the Santa.Ana Delhi Channel is a drainage course which will have to cleaned and the slopes repaired, which is now being.consi.dered a habitat.and feeding area of the California Least Tern: He also added that the San Diego Creek is another drainage course. Commissioner Thomas stated that the Endangered Species Act will take precedence in some of these areas.. Commissioner Thomas stated that a list of these areas should be submitted to. the staff committee to work these problems out for the next meeting. Commissioner Beek referred to Page 6 of the . October 23rd staff.report and stated that the term' "tidal prism" should be replaced with "tidal flow ". -25- w a� 3 i t�A 7C' N 3 ROLL Lj I Motion E October 23, 1980 M t Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner. Thomas stated that the wording in that section should be amended to state that the reserve shall not become a desilting basin.. He stated that the current language seems to indicate that part of the ecological reserve. could become a desilting facility. Mr. Webb . stated that he would not want to restric the abilities of the City, The Fish and Game Department, along with the other agencies in- volved, with their efforts in improving the quality of the bay. The existing dike makes the upper area an existing desilting basin. It is virtually impossible to remove silt under the present situation before it gets to the bay. He stated that to restrict this now, without the benefit of any studies, would not.be appropriate. Commissioner Beek.stated that he would like to restrict the agencies from making the upper bay . a silt collection basin. Commissioner Thomas stated that the initial 208 Early Action Plan seems. to indicate that the most feasible early action plan, economics included, is to use the upper bay as a desilting facility. He stated that the Commission should go on record' by stating that the ecological reserve can be cleaned out and restored, but shall not become an area that is periodically maintained and i.e. will loose its value as an ecological reserve in the upper region. Motion was made to add the proviso that the upper bay shall not be. considered a desilting facility. Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company; stated that there has been substantial planning activity associated with the 208 Program and possible locations for the desilting facility. The Commission should be aware that the State Department of Fish and Game, which owns the pro- perty, has gone on record indicating that the upper bay could'be considered as a desilting basic site,.provided that other alternatives were ex- plored and found not to be technically or econo- mically feasible. He stated that The Irvine Company has supported the rights of the property -26- ROLL • 1MISSIONERS October 23, 1980 x 3 N City of Newport Beach MINUTES owner in the pasta The property owner in this case, being -the Fish and Game Department, has not ruled out the possible use of the ecological re- serve itself, at least on an interim basis. Commissioner Thomas stated that the motion was toy add the proviso that the upper bay ecological reserve shall not, withstanding the 208 Study, be the location of a permanent or temporary desilt- ing facility. He stated that -his argument to support .that,is that the Fish and Game Department has made application for permits in the ecological reserve for the temporary disp.osal, prior to approval of The Irvine Company on the site north of Jamboree Road. After they obtained late ap- proval of that site, there is now an option available outside of the bay but they are making application for permits on the secondary site. He stated. that his motion does not preclude the option of using the site between MacArthur and Jamboree Road as that temporary location for the deposition of silt. P1- anning Director Hew icker stated that the abi lit. of the Fish and Game Department to use that.secon ary site north is conditioned on certain commit ments from the Fish and Game Department. He.. stated that they would not object to a desilting basin in the upper bay at least as an alternative consideration. Mr. Lenard stated that it was his understanding that they had agreed to not object to it being considered as a site in the context of the 208. Studies. .Commissioner Thomas stated that this was prior to The Irvine Company allowing the upper site to be considered. There is now an alternative at this point to be considered. Mr. Webb stated that at a recent meeting that he had attended, The Fish_and:Game Department had indicated.at that time, that as long as the feasible alternatives upstream, in an early ac- tion type plan, are ruled to be ineffective or. not feasible, they would consider a portion of the upper bay as a desilting basin. He stated that the Fish and Game Department hoped also that if this is to be considered, it would be -27- INDEX. ROLL October 23, 1980 City of Newp ort Beach MINUTES INDEX able to be jointly used, where possibly it could be used as an expansion of some of the marine habitat areas by dredging it out or digging it deep enough to be under water. Mr. Webb stated that in his opinion, one of the goals is to try to restore the upper end of the bay to a bay. One way to do this is to excavate material and remove it to provide a basin where . the material can drop out before it gets lower into the bay. This will require periodic main- tenance to remove the new input, but would not necessarily be detrimental to the overall goal of restoring the bay. Commissioner-Beek stated that this should not be regarded as a'solution to the problem; the.solu tion is to stop the silt from getting to the upper bay. He stated that this should clearly be stated • Mr. Webb stated that the 208 discussions have stated that this is an interim solution. Interim may be ten to twenty.years, or until the co.nstruc- tion of debr.isbasins at the foothill areas, drop structures and retention basins. He added that these are solutions that can not be done immediate 40 Commsisioner Thomas stated that information from the State Oversite'Committee indicates that a condition of some of the agencies is that they will. not look kindly upon using the ecological reserve as a desilting facility. This creates a conflict situation. Therefore, the LCP should contain language, at.least for the ecological reserve; that would allow for a conciliatory pro- ce.ss for the various agencies to go through. Commissioner Balalis stated that he can agree with all of the statements made on this issue. He asked Mr. Webb to explain further his position on the issue. Mr. Webb stated that if the LCP restricts work in the upper bay, the alternatives are so severely limited that there may not be anything that can be done for a very long time that would be effective in reducing the silt in the lower parts of the upper bay. sm Y• ROLL 1MISSIONERS October 23, 1980 MINUTES. x o D In = City of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Cokas asked if a time limit could be considered on how long the upper bay could be used as a.desilting facility. Commissioner Thoma stated that there is already an alternative . north of Jamboree Road which calls for the widening of. the San Diego Creek Channel which will create a small desilting facility. He added that with this alternative available, there would be no need to use the reserve. Commissioner Cokas asked Mr. Webb if this solves the problem. Mr. Webb stated that this does.not solve the problem. Mr. Webb explained to the Commission the problems related to silt and the. removal of same. He stated that studies are being made by the various agencies to identify solutions and alternatives. Commissioner Thomas stated that the ultimate solution is a comprehensive proposal which in- cludes some desilting facilities, some on -site • controls,.some spreading basins, etc. He stated that if a desilting facility is allowed in the ecological reserve, there would be no .reason for e the more difficult upstream controls to ever be . put in place. Commissioner McLaughlin suggested wording that the bay is not acceptable as a permanent desilting facility. Mr. Lenard stated that staff had designed the language to give.the 208 Planning Study Committee, Planning Commission, City Council, and the new Advisory Committee enough latitude to consider all the alternatives and make some judgement as to where it is appropriate to place the temporary facility. Commissioner Thomas stated that his motion include the wording of (i) on Page 6 of the October 23rd staff report along with the added proviso that the upper bay shall not be used as a desilting facility. Amendment X Commissioner Beek suggested wording that the use of the upper bay as a desilting facility: is not acceptable. Commissioner Thomas accepted this wording.. -29- October 23, 1980 MINUTES DREDGING, DIKING AND FILLING POLICIES Commissioner Thomas stated.that the memo of July 31, 1980-from the Marine.Department is accurate, but does not address the Porter Cologne Water, Quality Act which regulates all discharges or potential discharges into the waters of the State of California. Historically, dredging and depo- sition has been defined as potential.or actual discharging into the water. He stated that the language should stay in relating to the Regional Water Quality Control Board because of separate and parallel jurisd.ications. He stated that this is not a popular item with harbor people or en- gineers, but is a necessary part of the.current regulations. Therefore, the wording in the LCP should stand as it was originally written. Commissioner Beek stated that every effort should be made to exclude maintenance dredging from the discharge requirements of the Porter Cologne • Act. This is not a discharge, but just moving the beach back where it belongs. -30- INDEX NG �D y N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL Commissioner Balalis stated that the use of the wording "not-acceptable" means that it is used as that now', but it is not acceptable to be used for that purpose in the future. amendment X Commissioner Cokas suggested wording that a better solution has to be found. Commissioner Thomas accepted this wording to his motion. Ill Ayes X X X YX X Amended motion by Commissioner Thomas included . 4bsent * the w.ording.of the October 23rd staff report, Page '6, (i); with the added proviso, "That the use.of the upper bay as a desilting facility is not acceptable. A better solution has to be found." This amended motion was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * Commissioner McLaughlin asked for any suggestions or input on the October 23rd staff report, Page 6 (ii). The Commission was in agreement with this • paragraph. DREDGING, DIKING AND FILLING POLICIES Commissioner Thomas stated.that the memo of July 31, 1980-from the Marine.Department is accurate, but does not address the Porter Cologne Water, Quality Act which regulates all discharges or potential discharges into the waters of the State of California. Historically, dredging and depo- sition has been defined as potential.or actual discharging into the water. He stated that the language should stay in relating to the Regional Water Quality Control Board because of separate and parallel jurisd.ications. He stated that this is not a popular item with harbor people or en- gineers, but is a necessary part of the.current regulations. Therefore, the wording in the LCP should stand as it was originally written. Commissioner Beek stated that every effort should be made to exclude maintenance dredging from the discharge requirements of the Porter Cologne • Act. This is not a discharge, but just moving the beach back where it belongs. -30- INDEX NG ROLL x�m �q�� C October 23, 1980 z • Beach MINUTES INDEX In response to a question by Commissioner Balalis, Commissioner Beek stated that he felt the policies for dredging,. diking and filling were obviously designed to control development and prevent the destruction of wetlands, but are being inappropri- ately applied to the improvement of existing beaches. Commissioner Balalis concurred that maintenance dredging should be deleted. Commissio er Thomas suggested deleting maintenance dredging from the lower bay. Commissioner Beek stated that a distinction should be made between removing.silt from an area and the maintenance dredging of a beach. In response to a: question by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Webb stated that permits.have been obtained in dredging channels in the past. He stated that there is a blanket permit that the Coastal Com- mission has granted the City and the Corps of Engineers for maintenance dredging projects. • There is a limit on the amount of material that can be moved, which is a fairly small quantity. He added that maintenance dredging may have to be done in.the lower bay'.because Dover Shores and the Dunes areas have marinas and may need maintenance 2dredging from time to time. Commissioner McLaughlin asked for any suggestions or input on the September 18th staff report,. Page 20, Item No. 1. The Commission was in agree- went -with Item No. I. Commissioner McLaughlin asked for any suggestions or input on the'September 18th staff report, Page 21, Item No. 2. Motion x Motion was made to adopt the Marine Department's substitutions for Items No. 2b and 2c; as_per David Harshbarger's memo of July 31, 1980 as follows: 2b) Maintenance dredging in.Newport Bay shall be encouraged; and the material dredged shall be used to restore or replace natural sandy-sloping beaches .in ,order to retain the • current profiles of Newport Bay. Maintenanc dredging activity shall have the approval of -31- w D CALL October 23, 1980 M t Beach MINUTES,. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and where applicable, standards set by the Envir.onmen 1 .Protection Agency. 2c) Dredged material not suitable for.beach re- plenishment shall be disposed of at a designated EPA disposal site. All Ayes K X X YX X Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Absent Commissioner McLaughlin asked for any suggestions or input on the September 18th staff report, Page 21, Item No. 2d. Mr. Webb suggested revising the wording of 2d) as follows: Temporary de- watering of dredged spoils may be authorized within the Bay's drainag if adequate erosion controls are provided: and the • spoils..are removed. A definite time period shall be established for removal." Commissioner McLaughlin suggested to Mr. Webb that the word "shall" be replaced with the word "should". Mr. Webb stated 'that he would agree to this. Commissioner Thomas stated that there have.been problems in the past because temporary spoil piles_ have become permanent spoil piles. He stated that perhaps there should be a policy for temporar deposition, but that a bond would have to be poste to ensure that it will be removed. Mr. Webb asked how a public agency would go about posting such a.bo -nd. Commissioner Thomas stated that they would have to put up their money to guarantee that it be removed. Commissioner Balalis stated that he concurred with Mr. Webb's suggestion, in that any of the permitti g agencies can put a time limit on it. Commissioner Cokas stated that the most restrictive time limit could prevail. • -32- ROLL October 23, 1980 �M n (K S I City of Newport Beach Commissioner Balalis asked if it would be worse to take out the silt and wait a couple of years for it to be removed, or not to take it out at all. Mr. Webb stated that at.least during that waiting period, there would be the benefit of a partially cleaned bay. Commissioner Thomas state that the area it is deposited on becomes useless because nothing can grow on it, or nothing can be built on it. Commissioner Beek stated that with regard to a public agency posting a bond, actually the contrac would be let for someone to remove it. the full contract for both the dredging and removal after de- watering would.be let, and the contractor would post the bond. Mr. Webb stated that under these circumstances, the public agency would not be able to afford hiring the contractor. Mr. Webb stated that a possible disposal site is • the Coyote .Cany0n dump site, but this.site is that there are.very_ few, getting full. He stated places that.will accept silt. He stated that The Irvine Company owns the site between MacArthur Boulevard a -nd Jamboree Road, but has indicated that this i -s only a temporary site. He stated that their letter of agreement to allow the fish . and Game Department to place the material, states that they are not giving the site for permanent disposal, unless it can be shown that the material can be placed in such a manner that it can be used as a developable site. Commissioner McLaughlin asked the Commission if the wording as suggested by Mr. Webb for 2d) is agreeable. The Commission was in agreement with this wording, but with the following addition: Motion X Motion was made that a bond or a contractural of Ayes X X X YX arrangement be a pre- condition to the removal the material and that final disposal of the materi Noes Absent * on the approved dump site be accomplished within the time period specified in the permit, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * • -33- October 23, 1980 x a o D 3 y30 City of Newport Beach Commissioner McLaughlin asked for comments or suggestions on any of the following sections. Mr. Webb stated that his interpretation of 2g) is that the Fish'and Game Department may be restrict from doing what they want to do in their, restora- tiondoperations of the upper bay. He stated that one wetland area may have to be changed in order to create other wetland areas. Commissioner Thom stated that under the previously passed policies, this would not be affected. Mr. Webb referred to Item 3b "of the.September.l8t staff report, Page 22. He stated that the City has taken the position that they would support the Keys Marina near the Santa Ana River. Item 3b would in effect, prohibit development of the marina because to remove.a wetland area, it would • be required to provide that wetland area, times four, somewhere else. Mr. Lenard stated that the policy is taken out of the .Coastal Act. He. suggested taking this policy out because an unrecoverable degraded wetland can not be restored. Commissioner Thomas explained the difference be- tween a degraded wetland and an existing wetland. He suggested deleting the word "unrecoverable from the policy. Mr. Le.nard stated that the policy is wrong and needs to be reworded. Mr. Lenard referred the Commission to the'Septem- ber 18th staff report, Page 21., Item No. 2 and stated that a second sub- heading entitled, "Upper Newport Bay Policies" between e) and f) should have been included in the staff report. He stated that this would also answer the concern of the Marine Department's memo dated July 31, • 1980. -34- October 23, 1980 o W D N x � City of Newport Beach CALL MINUTES, UNIQUE COASTAL RESOURCES Commissioner Beek stated that it appears that items d, a and g, on Page 23 of the September 18th staff report,.refer to new development only.. And, that a, b, c and f, refer to existing lots which have already been subdivided. Commissioner Balalis stated that item f could apply to both categories. Commissioner Beek stated that this requirement would have to be complied with in any event. .commissioner Beek suggested that a sub- heading would be appropriate to indicate that items d, .e and g refer to new developments. Mr. Lenard stated that the City's existing bluff development policies only apply to planned community sites. It was the recommendation of the LCP Advisory Committee that these regulations be extended to virtually every lot in the City, • incl- uding already subdivided lots. He added that the setback requirement would not apply to already subdivided lots. INDEX In response to a question posed by Mr. Webb re- garding Page 24 of the September 18th staff . report, item h), Planning Director Hewicker state( that the bluffs would not be part of an individua' lot, but could be a separate lot to be maintained by the Association. Commissioner Beek stated that no one would have to own the bluff it it were let go for taxes. Mr Webb stated that the burden would then to put on the public agencies to own, operate, maintain and assume the liability for the bluff. Commissioner Balalis stated that the public agencies must take responsibility for the bluffs, it we do not allow people to build upon it or to utilize it. E w October 23, 1980 M Beach MINUTES INDEX ARCHEO /PALED RESOURCE POLICIES Mr. Lenard stated that-the staff would prefer to bring back to the Commission -more general archeo/ paleo types of policies for the Commission to consider. He stated that because of the high degre of specificity, staff would prefer to bring these -back as zoning and implementation. AREA DESCRIPTIONS Mr. Lenard stated that it should be noted that item f) is the Inspiration Point lots that are privately owned._ These lots have been shown in the LCP as "Recreational and Environmental Open Space", suggesting that they woul.d be appropriate lots for some type of public acquisition. The lots are currently zoned residential. He added • that although there have been various proposals to build on these lots, nothing has been built. Commissioner Allen asked if public acquisition is a real possibility. Planning Director Hewicker stated that on past development proposals on thes lots, the Coastal Commission has required that they be made available for..acquisition by a publi agency. He stated that they could not find an agency that was willing to do this. Commissioner Thomas suggested that possibly the lots can be acquired with the rental fees fund that has been set up. Commissioner Balalis state that these lots would be very expensive to acquir Commissioner Balalis referred to Page 6 of the October 23rd staff report, item a) Central Balboa. He stated that Retail and Service Commercial uses are just as important as Recreational.and Marine Commercial uses in this particular area. He stated that the restaurants, bicycle shop and the uses around the Fun Zone are needed in that area.to serve the local, as well as the visitor population. w 11111111 -36_ ARCHED/ PALED RESOURCE P LICIES' AREA DESCRIP TIO _MS . COMMISSIONERS October 23, 1980 MINUTES v, City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Lenard stated that the Recreational and Marine Commercial refers to the actual lots that front the water. There are a mixture of .uses, but the Coastal Commission wanted to establish a mechanisrr for review of new projects that occurred in the area. The new policy that the Commission has adopted has the latitude to allow the Retail and Service Commercial uses. Commissioner Beek stated that he concurred with the statements of Commissioner Balalis. Mr. Lenard stated that perhaps a solution to the problem would be to provide for a combination of uses and designate the area for a mixture of recreational /marine commercial and retail /service commercial uses. In that way, virtually all of the uses that have been discussed would be_out- right permitted uses. Commissioner Balalis noted that he did not parti- cipate in item c) Cannery Village /McFadden Square Bayfront. Mr. Dave Dmohowski,representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission and stated that he would like the.opportunity to comment on the specific site designations at the next meeting. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that the public hearing would be continued to the November 6, 1980 meeting. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS ADDI- TIONAL BUSINESS Banning Property The Commission discussed the possibility of de- leting the reference to the 4 per acre and approv ing a planning reserve for the Banning Ranch in West Newport. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the applicant has indicated that he would li to make a full presentation at the November 6th • study session. The Commission concurred that this item should be heard at the next study sessi -37- October 23, 1980 X 9 GtV Of Beach Discussion on the October 23rd Study Session MINUTES INDEX Newport Dunes Mr. .Lenard read to the Commiss.ion the list that was discussed on the Newport Dunes as follows: If dredged spoils are to-be watered on the site, the County should specify a one year removal The quality of the sand at the beach should be improved; Holding tank.pump -out stations should.be re- quired some place in_the marina; The pedestrian bridge should be -a suspension type,_ as opposed to a floating bridge; • I I I I I Some type of aeration device should be used as a means of improving water quality in the lagoon. Commissioner Cokas asked if aeration of the water would grow algae. Commissioner Thomas stated.. that this should be checked into. Commissioner Cokas suggested deleting the reference to "aerati and stating in general, "That.the quality of the water shall be maintained." Commissioner Thomas concurred. Development should be phased and conditioned on water quality improvements - factors con- sidered should include clarity, DOD, COD and coliform; Development should be in accordance with our Traffic Phasing Ordinance, specifically for the development of the Dunes. The necessary traffic improvements.should be made and phased to coincide with development at the expense of the County or the developer; To reduce traffic, park and ride facility, • and /or parking surcharges should be implemented Parking in accordance to City standards will be provided on site. -38- M C MISSIONERS1 October 23, 19 8 0 MINUTES x n D i i y I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Lenard stated that the next item on the list is the Family Inn. He stated that perhaps the Inn is not an appropriate use, or the Inn should be reduced in scale. The consensus of the Commis sion was to delete the Family Inn. Commissioner Balalis stated that the preamble of the LCP should state that no.permits should be allowed to expand the Dunes until the water quality has been proven to be adequate. Mr. Lenard stated that the comments on phasing should be that the first phase is to cleanup the water before any type of development can be considered.. Commissioner Balalis stated that the bay would have to be cleaned up first, before any permits can be issued. Mr. Lenard stated that the reference to -the meeting room in the Family Inn will be deleted. Commissioner Cokas asked if it would be useful • for the City to obtain from the State the respon- sibility for this whole-area. Planning. Director Hewi.cker stated that this is one of the alterna tives. the County asked to.explore in the prepara- tion of the EIR. Commissioner Beek stated that this is a State tidelands held in trust by the State and can not be sold to anyone. The State has granted them in trust to the County, but perhaps the State should re- grant the trust to the City. Commis -. sioner Cokas concurred with this. Commissioner Thomas stated that perhaps the lease can be acquired from the leasee with our funds that have been set aside. Commissioner Cokas stated that it.would not cost anything if the State would put this in trust to the City. Motion Motion was made to actively seek. control of this property. This can be accomplished by requesting All Absent X * .X X the State to grant the tidelands trust of the property to the City, instead of the County, which MOTION CARRIED. i -39- COMMISSIONERS October 23, 1980 MINUTES N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Santa Ana Heights Mr. Lenard stated that the Commission's concerns on this issue is the deletion of University Drive from the LCP and that the Santa Ana Heights area is not a good area for residential uses. Commissioner Beek stated that there is a terrible housing shortage in the'.area which is adjacent to a large employment area. He stated that the answer is to get the jets out of the airport, not to prevent housing. Commissioner Balalis stated that the mitigating factors connected with the reduction of the noise level at the airport, does not make it feasible to build housing. Motion I fJ.JJX[JJ1otion was made to exclude housing from underneath. Ayes X X the airport because it is impacted by noise. Agnt Mr. Lenard stated that the comments with regards to coordinating with the 208 Planning Program were to preclude consideration of the upper bay as any kind of a desilting facility. Commissione Thomas suggested forwarding the comments of the evening session. * * * C Planning Director Hewicker stated that the com- ments on the Downcoast included: Incorporating the definition of environmental open space, particularly as it pertains to Buck Gully; Phase development with the circulation system; Consider the widening of Sand Canyon and Laguna Canyon Roads; • Consider the impact on the airport which would: be created by the hotels, residential uses and the park; -40- C MISSIONERS1 October 23, 1980 MINUTES, 3 y City of Newport Beach Commissioner Allen stated that it should be stressed that the intent is to keep further impact off of Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, MacArthur and Jamboree: Commissioner McLaughlin added that the costs should be shared with the other cities.. Planning Director Hewicker asked if it should be suggested to evaluate the traffic impacts without the extension of the San.Joaquin Hills Transporta tion Corridor-. Commissioner Allen suggested that this be done along with detailed information on how it is expected to be funded. Set for public hearing on November 6, 19.80, . General Plan Amendment 79 -2 - proposed amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. All Ayes. Set for public hearing on November 20, 1980, a request to amend Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to.the consideratio of deleting the review and approval of Final Tract Maps by the Planning Commission. All Ayes There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:55 p.m. George Cokas,;Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach • IIIIIIII -41- I