Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/09/1978COMMISSIONERS • p MINUTES City of Newport Beach Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers '2 Time: 7:30 p.m. Date: November 9 1978 INDEX ROLL CALL Present K X X X X X X EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning Bill Dye, Assistant City Engineer Minutes Written By: Joan Lord * * * Item #1 Request to create two parcels of land for RESUB- commercial development where one parcel now DIVISION exists. NO. 583 Location: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 60 -17 (Resub- APPROVED • division No. 434), located at 4699 CONDI- Jamboree Road, on the southwesterly TIONALLY corner of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive in Kol.l Center Newport. Zone: P -C Applicant: California Canadian Bank, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach Staff commented that the engineer has submitted a revised map with a minor revision that would move the south westerly property line on Parcel 2 out an additional 8 feet, increase the size of Parcel 2 , and reduce the size of Parcel 1. This would not change any of the findings or conditions of approval from the staff. There were no questions from the Planning Commission. (Public hearing was opened in connection with this - 1 - COMMISSIONERS • ROLL CALL Motion All ayes 0 MINUTES City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 item. John Richards of Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, 1401 Quail Street, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that he and the applicant are aware of the condi- tions. He had no comments unless there were questions from the Planning Commission. There were no questions. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on this item, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the following findings: That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable gen- eral or specific plans and the Planning Com- mission is satisfied with the plan of sub- division. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. and approve Resubdivision No. 583 subject to the following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. That there shall be submitted a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions setting forth an enforceable method of insur- ing the installation and continued maintenance of all common area improvements including, but not limited to, landscaping, ingress, egress and parking acceptable to the Department of. Community Development, and in respect to legal enforceability, the City Attorney. Staff recommended and the Planning Commission agreed to hear Item #2 and Item #3 together. Action was delayed until later in the meeting because the applicant was not yet present. ONE INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL Request to clarify Use Permit No. 1683 (Amended) as approved by the Planning Commission on May 15, 1975, and determining if Roger's Gardens is in violation of said Use Permit for engaging in the sale of antique furniture, art, lamps, kitchen ware, housewares, gifts, and other items which ay normally used indoors, and; for allowing trees tc grow to a height in excess of 279 feet above mean sea level. 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 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 AND Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allows a commercial nursery and related retail sales including the sale of garden f.urnitu and the acceptance of an environmental document. Said amendment proposes to add approximately 9,880 square feet of structure to the site and facilities for the parking of 122 additional auto mobiles. Said amendment further proposes to per - mit commercial sales consistent within the nurser industry including florist sales and services, books, pictures, films, and postcards which relat to horticultural material and holiday decorative items, including Christmas ornaments. Additional patio accessories are to include antiques, dinner ware, and kitchen and-.culinary items associated with outdoor living or the garden kitchen /dining room concept. -3- MINUTES ,e re COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \c \9 \� \� \� \ \�\ City of Newport Beach Fir 0 ROLL CALL November 9, 1978 Location: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 81 -06 (Resub- division No. 485) and a portion of Block 93, Irvine's Subdivision, lo- cated at 2301 San Joaquin Hills Road, on the southerly side of San Joaquin Hills Road between MacArthur Boule- vard 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 Staff recommended and the Planning Commission agreed to hear Item #4 and Item #5 together. • Additional information. from the applicant and the homeowners association was distributed to the Planning Commission. This included a copy of the text to the Use Permit document containing changes which have been worked out between the homeowners and the applicant, and a second document entitled "Su lement to A lication to Amend the Use Permit Na. 1683 mended)", which sets forth the intent of the applicant. n U Public hearing was opened in connection with these items. Jeff D'Eliscu, General Manager of Roger's Gardens, Newport Beach, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission and said that Roger's Gardens concurs with all of the conditions and findings of the new draft submitted by the homeowners, and the staff report, and would be willing to sign the supplement to their amendment, providing all the conditions and findings of the staff report are approved by the Planning Commission. Staff explained that the Supplement to Application to Amend Use Permit No. 1683 (Amended) indicates to the City and to the surrounding community associa- tion that applicant intends to carry out changes -4- INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL to the use permit, which have been outlined, and barring unforseen catastrophy or act of God, wil' not apply for further amendments to their use pei mit, and if need arises, will be obligated to discuss it with the homeowners association 90 dal prior to filing with the City. Mr. D'Eliscu fel- that Roger's Gardens had fulfilled the Planning Commission's request that they work it out with the homeowners association, and made the commit- ment to rum a nursery. Mr. Phillip Arst, President of Broadmoor Hills Community Association, 2601 Lighthouse Lane, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Com- mission. He confirmed that they had submitted ti the Planning Commission, and agree with, the revised use permit text. With regard to use vio• lations, he asked the Planning Commission to direct Roger's Gardens to cease and desist actioi in violation of the use permit, so that the viol tions would be.on the record. It, was felt by thi • Planning Commission that a letter from R. V. Hog dated September 14, 1978, made it a matter of record'. Dr. Robert Rosenberg, 2507 Salt Air Circle, Corol del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission to express certain fears regarding Roger's Gar- dens' operations, such as increased tourist oriel tation and the use of existing and future buildii for non - nursery uses. He is not opposed to their expansion as a nursery or addition of needed parking. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on these items, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission makf .Ayes X a finding that Rogers Gardens has been in violati Noes X X X X X X of its existing use permit. Motion failed. Regarding Item #4, staff suggested that the Plan- ing Commission might find that the former use of the nursery was not consistent with the use per- mit, but if the use permit is to be amended and -5- MINUTES r. - ✓s is a- an, is f- igs on INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach • \ \\\\� s November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL approved, that question would no longer be one of issue. The Planning Commission decided that it would be better to act on Item #5, and then return to Item #4. Motion X Motion was made on Item #5 that the Planning All ayes Commission approve the Negative Declaration; make the following findings in conjunction with Use Permit No. 1683 (Amended): I. That the proposed development does not conflict with the General Plan. MINUTES 0 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the site plans and sections as submitted by the applicant, with the exception of minor modifications which may be approved by the Department of Community Development. 2. The operation of the nursery shall be govern- ed by the "Attachment to Amendment to Use Permit No. 1683 October 19, 1978 as amended and submitted to the Department of Community Development November 9, 1978; with the addition of a comma after the word "material" under paragraph 6a on page 4. 10 INDEX 2. That the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 1683 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to. the health, safety, • peace,.morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be.detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbor- hood or.the general welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1683 (Amended), subject to the following conditions: 0 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the site plans and sections as submitted by the applicant, with the exception of minor modifications which may be approved by the Department of Community Development. 2. The operation of the nursery shall be govern- ed by the "Attachment to Amendment to Use Permit No. 1683 October 19, 1978 as amended and submitted to the Department of Community Development November 9, 1978; with the addition of a comma after the word "material" under paragraph 6a on page 4. 10 INDEX COMMISSIONERS • ROLL CALL MINUTES City of Newport Beach INDEX That the access drive to the new parking lot shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or othe street surfacing material of a permanent nature. That the new parking lot be paved with asphalt, concrete or other street surfacing material The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. The new parking lot may be constructed in two phases as noted in the staff report. The construction of the second phase (55 spaces) shall commence immediately following completion of the first phase (75 spaces), regardless of the phasing schedule on the remaining structures, but not later than 18 months. • 6. That the location, design and orientation of any proposed parking lot lighting within the parking lot and driveway area shall be reviewed by the Department of Community Development to ensure minimum intrusion of peripheral lighting within the residential community. 7. That adequate landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the proposed residential devel- opment to the south of nursery to provide a privacy screen for future residents. That the Irvine Co. shall construct a masonry wall along the common property line between the nursery and the proposed residential development at such time as the plans for the residential development are approved. Said wall shall be a minimum of 5 feet in height. 9. That all grading shall be accomplished in accordance with plans approved by the City's Grading Engineer. 10. That all mitigation measures as set forth in • the Initial Study shall be met. -7- COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach November 9 . 1978 ROIL CALL 1.1. That on -site fire hydrants be constructed a! required by the Fire Department and the Pub' Works Department and that easements be pro - vided for the on -site fire hydrants. 12. That a resubdivision and parcel .map be files which would combine Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 81/6 with the adjacent portion of Block 93, . Irvine's Subdivision. 13. That all improvements be constructed as required by City ordinance and the Public Works Department. 14. That the full width of right -of -way for San Miguel Drive on an alignment approved by Public Works Department be dedicated to the public along the southeasterly property lina 15. That the northerly half. of San Miguel Drive • be improved (including sidewalk, curb and gutter; street lights and pavement). 16. That the existing.driveway approach on San Miguel Drive be closed up with curb and gutter and sidewalk. 17. That all vehicular access to San Miguel Drive, except for one driveway approach at i location to be approved by the Public Works Department, be .released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. When San Miguel Drive is improved to the ultimate street cross section, this driveway approacl will be limited to right turn in and out onl 18. That the remaining public improvements (in- cluding sidewalk not already the City's responsibility; curb and gutter; street lights; and pavement widening) along the MacArthur Boulevard street frontage be con- structed. This work shall be done under an .encroachment permit issued by the Califormi: Department of Transportation. • -8- MINUTES i Y. INDEX COMMISSIONERS r, ROLL CALL MINUTES City of Newport Beach November 9 19. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 20. 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. 21. That the water capital improvement acreage fees be paid. 22. That storage capacity in San Joaquin Reser- voir equal to one maximum day's demand be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. 23. That all activities not set forth in the use permit as amended shall be discontinued immediately. • 24. That the Suppl.ement to Application to Amend Use Permit No. 1683 Amended shall be signed by Gavin S. Herbert and submitted to the Department of Community Development. 25. That documents are signed within the.21 day appeal period and returned to the City. Motion X Motion was made on Item #4 that, as far as the All ayes determination of finding Roger's Gardens in violation of said Use Permit, the question is now moot: Request to approve a Final Map to subdivide 1.75 acres into seven numbered ,lots for attached single family residential development and one numbered lot to be developed as a landscape area, private driveways and guest parking spaces. Location: Lot 125, Tract 5435, located at 1976 Vista Caudal, southwesterly of Vista del Oro and northeasterly of Vista Caudal in "The Bluffs ". • Zone: R -4 -B -2 P.R.D. INDEX Item #2 FINAL MAP TRACT NO.8681 APPROVE CONDI- TIONALL COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL Applicant: Holstein Industries, Costa Mesa Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Engineer: Valley Consultants, I.nc., Huntingt Beach AND Request to approve a Final Map to subdivide 1.65 acres into seven numbered lots for attached sing family residential development and one numbered lot to be developed as a landscape area, private driveways and guest parking spaces. Location: Lot 89, Tract 5878, located at 212 Vista Entrada, westerly of Vista del Oro and easterly of Vista Entrada in "The Bluffs." Zone: R -4 -B -2 P.R.D. Applicant: Holstein Industries, Costa Mesa Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Engineer: Valley Consultants, Inc., Huntingt Beach The applicant having arrived, the discussion was opened on Items #2 and #3, to be heard together as agreed upon earlier in the meeting. George Holstein, 2143 Vista Entrada, Newport Bea of Holstein Industries, Costa Mesa, appeared bef the Planning Commission. He confirmed that he h read the reports and agreed with the staff recom mendations. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on these items, the discussion was closed. -10- MINUTES INDEX on Item #3 FINAL le MAP TRACT N0. 8682 APPROVED 2 CONDI- TIONALLY on c h' M COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL Motion All ayes 0 0 MINUTES City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 X Motion was made that the Planning Commission approve Final Map Tract No. 8681 and Final Map Tract.No. 8682, subject to the following condition of approval: 1. That all applicable conditions of approval for the tentative map of Tract No. 8681 and Tract No. 8682 shall be fulfilled. Request to remodel and expand an existing noncon- forming single family dwelling and antique shop in the M -1 District. Location: A portion of Lot 3, Block 239, Lancaster's Addition, located at 505 29th. Street, on the northerly side of 29th Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. Zone: M -1 Applicant: Rick Lawrence, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and James Parker appeared before the Plan - ning Commission on behalf of the applicant.. He apologized for the delay in bringing this matter back to the Planning Commission after the meeting of July 20, 1978. He emphasized that the appli- cant has no intention of using the property for any purpose other than a single family dwelling, and that the applicant would be willing to stub out the utilities in the upstairs portion of the forward unit, and take any other action necessary to assure the Planning Commission of his intent; however, he expressed concern with the safety aspect of removing the exterior stairway. The applicant would like to maintain the residential and industrial character of the property, and would use the upstairs portion for storage and a guest room. It was questioned how a Jacuzi could be reconciled with use for storage only. - 11 - INDEX COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL 0 MINUTES City of Newport Beach November 9. 1978 INDEX Another question from the Planning Commission con- cerned the space between the structure and adjoin- ing wall. Mr. Parker said that that problem would be alleviated by a fireproof wall, which it now has, or moving the "cat walk" out of the setback area. Regarding Condition 2 of the staff report, that "no windows, balconies or other openings shall be permitted within 5 feet of side property lines as required by the Uniform Building Code ", the applicant hoped that this Condition could be modi- fied so as to allow for some discretion on the part of the Building Official. Mr. Parker stated that he believed that building permits had been issued and signed off for all of the work that had been done. Staff stated that a set of plans authorizing the remodel, dated Octo- ber 16, 1972, had been retained to determine what work had or had not been authorized. It was pointed out that three situations exist: 1):some work has been done with a building permit that has been inspected and signed off; 2) some work has been done for which a building permit has not been issued, but for which a permit could be issued; and 3) some work has been done for which a permit could not be issued. It was observed that it is now a substantially different project from the original plan. -12- There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on this item, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission deny All ayes Use Permit No. 1878 and make the following findings 1. The proposed development is not consistent with the General Plan and will preclude the attainment of the General Plan objectives and policies. 2,. The proposed development will adversely affect the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. 3. The proposed development will adversely affect the public benefits derived from expenditures • of public funds for improvement and beautifi- -12- COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL cation of streets and public facilities wit in the area. 4. No offstreet parking spaces are being pro - vided for the expanded commercial use in Cannery.Village where an.inadequate number parking spaces already exists. 5. That the establishment, maintenance or oper tion of the use of the property or building will, under the circumstances of the partic lar case, be detrimental to the health, saf ty, peace, comfort and general welfare of , persons residing or working in the neighbor hood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements i the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed expa Sion of the existing single family dwelling on the site is not consistent with the legi lative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal • Code. In addition, the staff was requested to inspect the premises and require that they be brought in compliance with the findings that were made by t Planning Commission in 1972. If the staff feels that some workable solution can be.achieved to their satisfaction, the applicant may come back the Planning Commission at the next meeting. Additional fees would be waived. Request to permit a drive -up teller facility in conjunction with a Universal Savings and Loan us 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 Cent Newport. Zone: P -C • Applicant: Universal Savings and Loan, Rosemead -13- MINUTES INDEX h- of a- u- e- n n- s- to he to Item #; e LY COMMISSIONERS •� z City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL Owner: Aetna Life Insurance Co., Newport Bea Public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Arthur Strock of Lee & Strock, Architects, 4220 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission and concurred with the contents of the staff report. When asked if other options had been studied, Mr. Strock said that this was the best they could do to fulfill the requirements of eye contact between the tellE and customer, and easy access to and from .the drive -up teller facility. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on this item, the public hearing was closet Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission make All ayes the following findings: 1. That the proposed development is in confor- mance with the General Plan and the Planned Community Development Standards of Koll Ceni Newport, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate offstreet parking spaces will be provided for the proposed development. 3. Adequate provisions For traffic circulation are being made for the drive -in teller facility. 4. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 5. The Police Department.has indicated that the do not contemplate any problems. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1885 will not under the circumstances of this case be detr mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons resit ing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the gene . al welfare of the City. -14- MINUTES :e ,y . •i- �r- INDEX COMMISSIONERS Fyn A fy City of Newport Beach Nnvamhar 0. 1078 ROLL CALL and approve Use Permit No. 1885, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan. Ti final design of.the subject drive -up teller facility shall be subject to the approval 01 the City Traffic Engineer. 2. That storage for six vehicles, including tha vehicle being served, shall be provided in the reservoir lane at all times. 3. That the common parking lot in Office Site 1 shall be expanded or redesigned so that all parking requirements shall be maintained in conjunction with the proposed development. However, the applicant shall be given a crei of three parking spaces in the proposed res4 voir lane of the drive -up teller unit. • 4. That all signs shall conform to the provisii of the Koll Center Newport Planned Communit, Development Standards. However, directiona signs such as "entrance ",. "exit ", or other similar.convenience sign shall not include the name or logo of the savings and loan usi A proposal to amend Title 19 of the Newport Beacl Municipal Code as it pertains to "Condominium Conversions." Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with thi! item. Keith Greer, representing The Irvine Compi appeared and expressed concern about some wording in Exhibit B, Section 19.10.050, Paragraph 1, specifically "basic compliance" and "new condomil ium construction ". Changes in Exhibit A were described to him, as he had not seen a copy, and he felt that the new wording answered their con- cern. If Exhibit A were accepted, the parking • -15- MINUTES INDEX e li :r ins PPROV ONDI- IONAL my I COMMISSIONERS • � 4,f�4 CZ City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL requirement would be a minimum of one space per unit, it would not be based on the existing stan- dards that apply for new condominiums. Beyond these questions he felt that the ordinance has th potential of achieving what the City is setting out to do. Dan Emery appeared and stated that condominium conversions have been accelerating in the City a at the present rate, has the potential of substar tially reducing.the number of apartment units available. He felt that it was the function of Planning Commission to plan the housing stock in the City to have the appropriate mix of apartmen condominiums, and single family dwellings, as wel as concerning itself with the mix and diversity people. He was in favor of making it more dif- ficult for apartment owners to convert to condomi iums, and one way to accomplish this would be to make it necessary for anyone seeking to convert apartment to condominium to meet all of the • criteria and standards that apply to new condomi ium development. On the question of meeting Sta and Federal requirements for low cost housing, i t was,Mr. Emery's view that condominium conversion reduce the number of low cost rentals. It was t feeling of some of the Commissioners that the conversion of apartment units to condominiums wo help to meet State and Federal requirements by p viding single family dwellings at a lower cost. In addition the Commission felt that the rights the property owner should also be considered. A representative of the Central Newport Beach Con munity Association appeared and reported that it was the consensus of the association that conver- lion of apartments to condominiums would not be good from the standpoint of providing low cost housing. They were also concerned about the dis- placement of tenants from apartments that are cor verted if they cannot afford to buy the condomin i and indicated that they are sending a letter to Planning Commission expressing their views. Gary Allen, 1021 White Sails, Corona del Mar, ap- peared and presented a.proposal for meeting the • problem being imposed by the State with regard tc -16- MINUTES e nd, the ts, 1 of n- n n- te s he u d pr of um the INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \9 \� \0 \ \\ City of Newport Beach • ROLL CALL 0 November 9, 1978 low cost housing. He said that if the Planning Commission feels it needs to pass a regulation concerning condominium conversions, it should include something to the effect that, if someone converts a residential development of more than 5 units and for every 5 units thereafter, those fifth units be sold for a figure that would.satisf State and Federal regulatory agencies and qualify for low cost housing. He also commented on the . problem of older residents not being able to.quali fy for 20 or 30 year mortgages when their apart- ment is converted. Hank Towtski, 1516 Eaton, Newport Beach, appeared and said he believes that buildings should be brought up to present exising codes before they can be converted to condominiums. It was pointed out that Section 19.10.050, Paragraph 1, makes that requirement; however, staff added that under Section 19.10.060 the Planning Commission may gran a waiver to that requirement. There being-no others desiring to appear and be heard on this item, the public hearing was closed. Discussion between members of the Planning Commis- sion explored the following concerns: a) Need for an ordinance to bring buildings to be converted to condominiums into compliance with the building code. Exhibit A would require that they be brought into basic compliance with th current building code; however, there are waiver provisions. Exhibit B is much more restrictive an would make compliance more difficult. b) Lack of a complete option to either approv or disapprove a conversion. Staff indicated that neither of the options has addressed the question of whether or not a conversion should be denied on the basis of the need for condominiums, or the nee for rental units. The Assistant City Attorney reported that the Attorney General had rendered an opinion in 1975 that it is within the police power of a city (such as Newport Beach) to deny conver- sions of existing apartments to condominiums based upon reduction of rental housing stock and major -17- INDEX COMMISSIONERS • � CZ ROLL CALL M on A Ayes Motion Ayes Is City of Newport Beach November 9. 1978 MINUTES �r- �t- F 1i :s on it n :e INDEX displacement of tenants. Some communities have adopted regulations requiring certain kinds of surveys of rental units within an area and a det( mination of a vacancy factor, and will deny condo minium conversions in an attempt to mai.ntain apai ment or rental units. Incorporating this concept would require a substantial modification to both versions under consideration. c) Distinction between the terms "waive" and "modify ". Staff explained that there is a differ ence. It is not possible to modify a requirement down to nothing, and there may be occasions when the Planning Commission would want to completely eliminate a requirement by waiving it. d) Question as to whether City Council shou' make the decision to discourage or encourage con- dominium conversions, after opinions from the community have been heard. X Motion was made that the Planning Commission subs Amendment No. 521, Exhibits A and B, to the City Council for their consideration, with the recom- mendation that Exhibit A be adopted,.with Exhibi A and B changed to reflect the recommendations Set forth in the staff report, and that Section 19.10:050 Findings of each exhibit be amended as follows: 19.10.050 Findings. A condominium conversion project or portion thereof shall be conditionall., approved in whole or in part if the Planning Com• mission, or City Council upon appeal or review, has considered and found the following: 1. That the building to be converted, the date of the conversion, will bi in basic compliance with the currei Building Code, providing there is existence at least one parking spa per unit. X Motion was made that Section 1.9.10.010 Intent an X X Purpose of Exhibit B be changed to read- X X X X X Council finds and determines that condominiums differ from apartments in respect to design, type -18- MINUTES �r- �t- F 1i :s on it n :e INDEX COMMISSIONERS z ROLL CALL Motion Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Noes M *on 0 City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 MINUTES INDEX Item #9 TENTA- TIVE MAP TRACT c. NO. 10587 i APPROVE[ rd C NDI- TIONALLY of construction, and maintenance controls, and reaffirms the City commitment to provide for a variety of housing styles; therefore, these devel opment standards are adopted for the preservatior of a supply of rental housing, and for the protec tion of the community, and purchasers of condomin- iums which have been converted from apartments." Motion failed. X Motion was made to delete words "waiver" and "or X waive" where they appear in Section 19.10.060 X X X X X Modification or Waiver of Standards in Exhibit B. Motion failed. X Motion was made to leave Section 19.10.050 Findiv X X as originally written in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, X X X X Motion failed. X Motion was made and withdrawn that the Planning Commission ask the City Council to request of th( staff a suggestion of how to.word the method of denying a request for condominium conversion. I1 was felt that this step could be taken at a later date, after an ordinance has been adopted. Request to subdivide 6.8 acres into one lot so a: to permit the conversion of the existing Versailles -on- the - Bluffs multiple - family residen• tial units into a residential condominium comple; Location: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 33 -42, locates at 901 Cagney Lane, on the south- easterly corner of Hospital Road ai Superior Avenue in the Planned Com• m,unity of Versailles -on- the - Bluffs Zone: P -C Applicant: Daon Corporation, Newport Beach Owner: Robert A. McNeil Corp., San Mateo Engineer.: Hall & Foreman, Inc., Santa Ana -19- MINUTES INDEX Item #9 TENTA- TIVE MAP TRACT c. NO. 10587 i APPROVE[ rd C NDI- TIONALLY COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL Staff distributed a list of recommended revisions to the conditions of approval for this item, and explained that these revisions had been worked ou at the staff level to more clearly define respons bilities in meeting certain conditions contained the original staff report. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. David Neish, with the firm of Urban Assist, Inc., representing the Daon Corp., appear before the Planning Commission and reviewed some of the facts presented in the staff report. He said that Daon Corp. concurs with all findings ar conditions in the staff report, including the revisions, and requests approval by the Planning Commission. Daon Corp. has notified the existinc tenants of the proposed change of ownership and conversion to condominiums. Copies of the letter from Delon Corp. were distributed to the Planning Commission members. The staff was asked whether or not this project, would have met the requirements of .Exhibits A anc or B of the proposed conversion ordinance if one of them had been in effect. It was the opinion c the staff that this project meets the more restri tive requirements of Exhibit B,.and if either ver Sion of the .proposed ordinance were in effect, th Planning Commission would be required to approve this project. Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney, was asked, what options the Planning Commission has in consi ering this condominium conversion. He replied that there is very little discretion, without a condominium conversion ordinance, to deny a projE that can meet the conditions that have been sugge ed by the staff, building codes;.and those kinds requirements. It was his opinion that there were no alternatives. In answer to the question of wt would happen if the Planning Commission denied tt request, he said there could be an ensuing law su and the court would probably determine that there is no discretion vested in a city to deny a projE as long as it complied with the provisions of the . State Subdivision Map Act., in particular Section 66427.1 the notice to the tenants regarding prior -20- MINUTES t i- in c- e d- ct -st of at e lit !ct INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach • bZ 'Z November 9. 1978 ROLL CALL and the first right of refusal. Once the City ha adopted a condominium conversion ordinance, how- ever, considerably more control can be exercised over the conversion of existing buildings to. cond miniums. Loren Chelsey, 300 Cagney Lane, Versailles -on -the Bluffs, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planni Commission. He noted an error in the staff repor regarding the Map Tract No. He was concerned abo the needed-repairs in the apartments and hoped th they could be completed before conversion to cond miniums. Deborah.Allen, 1021 White Sails Way, Newport Beac appeared and spoke about the older people who cou not afford to buy a condominium, or would not be able to qualify for a mortgage. She was concerne about the approximately 400 people who would be displaced by this conversion, and felt that there • had not been enough time before this Planning Com mission meeting for the tenants to prepare their comments. Rosemary Steinberger, a resident of Versailles -on the_ Bluffs, stated that the apartment complex is not suitable for conversion because of the number of small apartments in.it, and after it is conver ed there woul.d be no control over the number of residents in each unit. Mr. Coffin quoted from t State Subdivision Map Act, Section 66427, which provides that the governing body shall not have t right to refuse a project on account of the desig or location of the buildings. He continued with other provisions of the Map Act, saying that we must rely on these until the City has a new condo minium conversion ordinance. John Camonetti, 200 McNeil, Versailles -on- the -Blu Newport Beach, said that these apartments do not have separate entrances so they are not suitable for.condominiums. He also remarked about the needed repairs. Raymond W. Clauson, resident of Versailles -on -the Bluffs, felt that there will be more conversions -21- MINUTES ng t ut at o- h, I t- he he INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL because of restrictions on raising rents, and more elderly people will have no place to go.. There being no others desiring to appear and be. heard on this item, the public hearing was closet Mr. Coffin pointed out that this item is a Tenta- tive Subdivision Map and it will go to the City Council for approval, so objections can be heard there. Members of the Planning Commission express.ed thei concern for the needs of the tenants and the hour ing supply in the City, but also for the property rights of the owners as long as they are acting within existing laws. Motion. X Motion was made to deny Tentative Map Tract No. Ayes X K 10587 on the grounds that it is violative of the Noes X X X X X State of California's mandate to meet the housinc • needs of the entire population. Motion failed. Mr. Coffin recommended that Findings 1 through 8 in the staff report be eliminated and Findings 9, 10, and 11 be renumbered 1,.2, and 3, to be consi tent with the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Neish reappeared before the Planning Commissi with a technical concern. It was his understand i that Findings 1 through 8 in the staff report we required under the Subdivision Map Act if filing for a Tentative Map. Mr. Coffin answered that Findings 1 through 8 in the staff report are the Findings in Sections 66473.5 and 66474 of the Mar Act, and Section 66427.2 provides "unless applice ble general or specific plans contain definite objectives and policies specifically directed to the conversion of existing buildings in a condomi ium project, the provisions of Sections 66473.5 66474 shall not apply to condominium projects wh i consist of the subdivision of air space in an ex ing structure unless new units are to be constru ed or added." • -22- MINUTES s- on ng re n- and ch ist c t- INDEX COMMISSIONERS � 9�t4� v� pmpQya City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL Mr. Neis.h stated that they would be satisfied wit this opinion if the minutes specifically reflect that. The public hearing was reopened. A member of the audience asked that Mr. Balalis abstain from voti because of a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Balalis responded that, for the record, he do own several duplexes that possibly could be con-* verted. The public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission make Ayes X X X X X the following findings: Noes X X 1. That each of the tenants of the proposed con dominium will be given 120 written notice of intention to convert prior to termination of tenancy due to the proposed conversion. 2. That each of the tenants of the proposed con dominium will.be given notice of an exclusiv 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. 3. That the Police Department has indicated tha they do not contemplate any problems. and approve Tentative Map Tract No. 10587, subjec to the following conditions: 1. That a final tract map be filed. 2. That a declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be approved, setting forth an enforceable method.of insuring the continued maintenance of the existing land- scaping, 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 CC &R's shall also include, -23- MINUTES h ng es t t INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROIL CALL for prospective owners, disclosures regardir sound transmission between units and the absence of sound attenuation materials or construction if such do not exist. The CCH shall also include a disclosure of any comma sewer line or other common utilities found t 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 condominiun 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. 4. That each of the tenants of the proposed con dominium shall be given written notice of ar exclusive right to contract for the same ter and conditions that such units will be ini- tially offered to the general public or tern more favorable to the tenant.. The right sha run for a period of not less than sixty.days from the date of issuance of the subdivisior public report issued pursuant to Section 11018.2 of the Business and Professional Cod unless the tenant gives prior written notice of his intention not to exercise the right. A copy of said written notice shall be pro- vided to the Director of Community Developme as evidence that this condition has been met 5. That all building code violations, including but not limited to, bootlegged construction, improperly maintained drainage systems, fire hazards or other evident problems shall be corrected prior to conversion. 6. That a licensed electrical, plumbing and mechanical contractor shall review existing • systems and certify their condition, to the -24- MINUTES 's In o ms is .11 e, n INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach • \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX Building Official, relative to the deficien- cies outlined in condition no. 5. 7. That all existing fire protection equipment, such as but not limited to, wet stand pipes, fire extinguishers, fire sprinkler systems, etc. shall be inspected by the Fire Depart- ment and deficiencies corrected prior to con- version to meet fire codes in effect at the time of original construction. 8. That existing geological and soils conditions be reviewed by a certified geologist or licensed soils engineer. If evidence exists of questionable conditions or signs of build- ing settlement or failure are observed, com- plete investigations shall be performed. The engineer or geologist shall-submit a report to the City outlining his findings and recom- mendations. • 9. 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. 10. That all dwellings shall be provided with smoke detectors. . 11. That each owner of a condominium dwelling unit shall be entitled at no extra charge to the use of one covered parking space. 12. That the existing railroad ties along Superio Avenue be relocated as necessary to a line at least 0.5 foot back of the existing property line along with the removal of all other private improvements. 3. That a system of sidewalks and street lights be studied and installed along the private streets and a master plan be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to approval.of the final map I14. That a standard subdivision agreement and 0 1111111 surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory -25- COMMISSIONERS Cl q City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL completion of the public improvements and private sidewalks and street lights, if it i desired to record the map before the public improvements and private sidewalks and stree lights are completed. 15. That the applicant shall submit a formal request to the City Council for police enfor ment of the California Vehicle Code on the private street system. 16. That a 40 scale reproducible traffic control plan for the private streets be prepared anc submitted for review and approval .by the Cii Traffic Engineer prior to approval of the final map. 17. That, if it is desired to have a control gal on the Scholz Plaza entrance off Hospital Road, a turn - around shall be provided prior • to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. Request to permit interior alterations and second floor additions to an existing single family dwel" ing and related two -car garage. The proposed devi opment will exceed 2,000 sq. ft. of interior livii space without providing the third on -site parking space as required by Code. A stairway to a third floor deck also exceeds the permitted height limi- in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested since a 4' high wall and gate are proposed in the required 10' front yard setback (where the Code permits walls not to exceed 3' in height). In addition, a 7' high wall is proposed along a port of the northeasterly side property line (where thi Ordinance permits walls not to exceed 6' in heigh Location: Lot 16, Block 438, Canal Section, located at 405 38th Street, on the northwesterly side of 38th Street between Marcus Avenue and Finley Avenue on Newport Island. Zone: R -2 -26- MINUTES t :y :e 0 Ig ion t). INDEX M COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL Applicant: Bruce Stuart, Newport Beack Owner: Same as Applicant Public hearing was opened in connection with thi: item and Richard Brooks, architect, 17500 Red Hil Avenue, Irvine, appeared. He said that of the fc items in conflict with the basic city requiremeni three of these could be remedied: change the height of a side fence from 7' to 6'; change heic of wall in front of the house from 4' to 3'; and meet the height requirement on the roof deck. TY only requirement not met is the provision of park ing for three cars. Bruce Stuart, 405 38th Street, Newport Beach, the applicant, appeared and said that the only way th parking requirement could be met would be to elin nate the proposed family room, and they.hoped the . would not have to do this. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on this item, the public hearing was closet Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission make Ayes X X X the following findings: Noes X X X 1. That there are exceptional or 'extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, buildinc or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or. conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district. 2. That the granting of the request is necessar for the preservation and enjoyment of sub- stantial property rights of the applicant, since two on -site parking spaces are adequai for the applicant's needs. 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particul case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing.or working to the neighborhood of the property of the -27- MINUTES ;s Ih e ie li ,y ,y ;e INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach MINUTES • `p Cy November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL applicant and will not under the circum- stances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injuri- ous to property or improvements in the neigh- borhood. and approve Variance No. 1071 as to parking only, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan, floor . plans, and elevations, except the nonconform= ing roof and fences would be made to conform. 2. That all provisions of the Uniform Building Code shall be met, including the requirement of two stairways from the proposed third floor deck to the first floor below. Motion failed. Amendment was proposed that, in the interest of encouraging single family dwellings, a deed • restriction be recorded that specifies the use of this property as a single family house. The applicant would not accept this condition so the amendment was withdrawn Motion X Upon staff recommendation that there should be a All Ayes subsequent motion to deny, to make sure there is no question, motion was made that Planning Com- mission deny Variance No. 1071 and make the follow ing findings: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinar circumstances applying to the land, building use referred to in the application to exceed the permitted height limit which circumstance or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district. 2. That the granting of the request is not neces- sary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, since the proposed development consists of extensive remodeling and expansion of the existing single family dwelling on the site. The subject property is of .adequate size to accomodate the three required parking spaces. 3. That the granting of such application will not under the circumstances of the particular case materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working Me INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach • <,� November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant, and will under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrime tal to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhooi 4. That the proposed walls and related gate thi exceed permitted height limits will, under 1 circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons resit ing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be detrimental or injuriou! to property and improvement in the neighbor• hood and the general welfare of the City ani further that the proposed modification is n( consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 30 from the R -3 -B -2 District to the A -P District, and the acceptance of an environmental document. Location: Parcel 2, Parcel Map 3 -35 (Resubdiv sion No. 211), located at 2222 Univi sity Drive, easterly of Irvine Aven adjacent to the Orange Coast Y.M.C.i property. Zone: R- 3. -B -2 Applicant: James F. Deane, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Motion X Motion was made to remove Item #11 from the agen All Ayes Staff stated that Amendment No. 520 will be read vertised.and brought back to the Planning Commis sion at a later date. -29- MINUTES M ) t ie, i. INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL Request for exception from the requirements of Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) for the proposed deve opment in compliance with the approved Planned Community Development Plan for Civic Plaza. Location: Bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive and Santa Barbara. Drive, in Newport Center. Zone: P -C Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant The staff presented additio.nal information relate • to questions received from the Planning Commissic during the study session on this item. The Irvin Company was asked to provide additional factual data to support their request, and staff made further investigations, as follows: 1) Purchase price to the City of the Libra site from The Irvine Company was $279,000. There are 1.97 acres, 85,813 sq. ft., so the City paid $3.2571 per sq. ft.. It was appraised in 1975 at $4.25 per sq. ft.. The City purchased the site a year later, so the discount amounted to approxima ly 25 %. 2) Assuming that the museum site had appro mately the same value, approximately 2 acres at $4.25 appraised value, the value of that site wo be $370,260, which it is understood was donated The Irvine Company to the Newport. Harbor Art Museum. 3) In answer to ques.tions as to who obtain the permits, the permits for grading of the muse site were issued to Robb Carley of Raub, Bein, a. • Frost, the project engineers. The grading was p -30- MINUTES M VA to xi- the uld by ed um nd aid INDEX Item #12 COMMISSIONERS O @p City of Newport Beach November 9. 1978 ROLL CALL for by both the art museum and The Irvine Company The Irvine Company subsequently reimbursed the ar museum for their share of the cost. There was subsequent fine grading of the Library site, whic the City paid for, of $1,200. This was required because the design of the library would not fit t configuration of the original grading. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission decl Ayes X X to hear this item and direct the applicant to the Noes X X X X X City Council. It was the opinion of the maker of the motion that the City Council had accepted the procedure of deciding whether or not a project wa vested, prior to any application for building or grading permits. He considered this request befo the Planning Commission a change.iin.procedure whic should be submitted to the City Council. Motion failed. Mr. Coffin was asked to explain the Planning Comm . sion's options in this matter. He noted that, in regards to the legal options and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance,.as it is presently constituted, puts t burden on the Planning Commission at the first st to determine whether or not a project should be excepted from the ordinance. It was his opinion that the earlier procedures referred to do not change the ordinance. It was pointed out that, i the past, at least one application for exemption from the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordina had been considered by the Planning Commission an granted. His opinion was based on Section 15.40. Subdivision D of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance), which states that th Planning Commission shall except any project from the requirements of this Chapter, Subdivision I, it finds "the City has issued a building or gradi permit for the project prior to the effective dat of this Chapter and that the person to whom such permit was issued has, in good faith and in relia upon such permit, diligently commenced constructi and performed and incurred substantial liabilitie for work and materials necessary therefor. No change causing a substantial increase in traffic • volume may be made in such project except in acco ante with the provisions of this Chapter." The -31- MINUTES t h he in 5 re h is he ag n nc d 03 e if ng e nc on s rd rJbl:* COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach November 9. 1978 ROLL CALL ordinance does not necessarily require that the request for exception appear as,an application fe a building or grading permit, just that someone comes to the Commission at first stage requesting a project be excepted from the ordinance. Robert Shelton of The Irvine Company remarked tha they understood, after a consultation with the Ci Attorney, based upon the past experience of the Ford Aeronutronic application, that they are doir exactly what both the ordinance requires and what has been done previously, and that is why they ar before the Planning Commission and not before the City Council. John Butler, representing the Central Newport Beach Homeowners Association, asked for a defini- tion of vested property rights and was asked to wait until the public hearing was opened for an answer to questions such as this. • The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Robert Shelton of The Irvine Compar appeared before the Planning Commission. He saic that documents prepared by Latham & Watkins had been submitted to the Planning Commission to give the reasons why The Irvine Company feels exceptie status from the requirements of the Traffic Phasi Ordinance should be granted. He wanted to make clear that they are only dealing with the.questic of exception status, as distinguished from commor law vesting. It was their opinion that this request meets the test which is established in tF ordinance, and they believe, in fairness and in comparison to others that have achieved exception status, that this project should.be accorded the same accomodation. Robert Break of Latham and Watkins appeared befor the Planning Commission to comment on the.legal aspects of their request. He detailed their con- tention that Civic Plaza meets the exception requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: 1) 'It is a Planned Community and is a proje -32- MINUTES t e y n ng e -e c INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach is November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX by CEQA definition, legislative history of the ordinance indicating that any Planned Community is a project, and application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to other Planned Communities. 2) Building and grading permits were issued on the project prior to the effective date of the ordinance. Building and grading permits for Civic Plaza, specifically the Newport Harbor Art Museum, were issued in October, 1976, the grading permit for the library site was issued in October, 1976, and the building permit for the library site was issued in May, 1978, all prior to the effective date of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3) Substantial liabilities have been incurred on the project in reliance upon those permits. The Irvine Company has made a gift.of the land to the art museum amounting to $370,000, has graded the library site for the City at a cost of $11,000, • installed-on-site master plan utilities at a cost of $22,000, and made a donation of aquarter of the value of the land to the Library in the amount of $90,000. Adding to that the cost to the City and Newport Harbor Art Museum in constructing their building and engaging in that development, the total amount of liabilities that have been incurred towards the completion of the Civic Plaza project is in excess of $2,000,000. He gave the Planning Commission copies of the documents reflecting pay- ment of $11,000 on the grading, $22,000 in master plan utilities, and the agreement for purchase and sale between The Irvine Company and the City for the library site. In answer to a question from the Planning Commissio regarding his interpretation of "substantial ", Mr. Break cited a case in which the court had ruled that $40,000 was an undeniable quantum of prejudice or undebatable item, and in this case the liabili- ties were many times that. Regarding the fact that part of the $2,000,000 claimed as liability was the City's money, he answe.red.that the question is whether or not a particular project is vested, and whether liability towards the completion of the project has been substantial. The expenditures of all participants in that project towards the com- pletion of the project would be considered. If the -33- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \co \9 \� \0 \ \\ City of Newport Beach Z November 9, 1978 ROLLCALLI 1111 111 INDEX liabilities incurred by the City and the Newport Harbor Art Museum are not included, there are still liabilities incurred by The Irvine Company of an excess of $470,000. Mr. Break was asked for any expenditures made by The Irvine Company in reliance upon a permit issued to The Irvine Company. Mr. Break explained that no permits have been issued in the name of The Irvine Company, but rather to contractors acting on their behalf. Staff remarked that it is required that a permit be taken out by a licensed contractor, except in the case of an owner who is going to do the work himself. Mr. Break also pointed out that the focus of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is on projects, not on individuals in the project, as demonstrated by Koll.and Emkay who work on projects with several different owners, none of whom have taken out building permits. He also said that, based on the estoppel legal con- cept, or preclusion, if the City acts in such a. way • in giving its final approval towards the.project in the form of a building or grading permit, and is aware that somebody is acting upon that final authorization of the project, the City cannot then allow that person to undertake that reliance and incur those liabilities, and then remove that approval. Mr. Shelton added the fact that $230,000 was spent by The Irvine Company to build San Clemente Drive specifically to serve this project. Although it is not within the project boundary, it was done in reliance upon the needs of the project. He also mentioned the art museum is awaiting some form of approval so that their parking problem can be resolved. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on this item, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission Ayes X X request that the City Council engage an outside Noes X X X X X attorney for the purpose of furnishing additional unbiased legal opinion regarding the vesting of . Civic Plaza. It was the opinion of other members • that it was not appropriate for the Planning Com- mission to request this action, that'it should come from the City Council or the City Attorney's office -34- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach November 9, 1978 ROLL CALL I 1111 111 INDEX Mr. Shelton added that their request was for excep- tion from the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, not a matter concerned with vesting. Motion failed. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission con - Ayes X X X X X curs with The Irvine Company's position paper Noes X X regarding the "exception" of the Civic Plaza Plan- ned Community, and makes the following finding: 1. The City issued a building or grading. permit for the project prior to the effective date of Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code and that the person to whom such per mit was issued has in good faith and in reli- ance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change causing a substantial increase in • traffic volumes may be made in such project, except.in accordance with the provision of Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of other findings that would set forth in detail its position in support of this one major finding. Following discussion the Planning Commission deter- mined that no additional findings would be neces- sary. Motion was made to set a public hearing on this item for December 7, 1978. The intention of the Planning Commission is to treat this project the same as any other excepted projects. R -1025 -35- R -1026 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Motion X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No...1026, All Ayes setting a public hearing for December 7, 1978, on Proposed Amendments to the.Grading.Ordinance. Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1027 setting a public hearing for December 7, 1978 on • -35- R -1026 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROIL CALL n November 9, 1978 feasibility and advisability of establishing a maximum height for structures above the curb line on the bluff side of Kings Road. R- There being no further business, Planning Commis- sion adjourned at 1:00 a.m. Q7" GEORG COKAS, Secretary City f Newport Beach Planning Commission -36- INDEX