HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/09/1982MMISSIONERSI REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
XI XIXIX IX IX I* I Commissioner Allen was absent.
* * *
EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT:
James D. Hewicker, Planning Director
Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney
* * *
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator
Robert P. Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator
Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator
• Patricia Temple, Senior Planner
Donald Webb, City Engineer
Pamela Woods, Secretary
* *
Staff advised the Commission that the applicants for
items No. 14 and 15 - Use Permit No. 3006 and
Resubdivision No. 736, Item No. 24 - Use Permit No.
3012, and Item No. 6 - Use Permit No. 3013, have
requested that these items be continued to the Planning
Commission Meeting of January 6, 1983.
Motion X Motion was made to continue, the above stated items to
All Ayes X X X X' * the Planning Commission Meeting of January 6, 1983,
which MOTION CARRIED.
* * *
-1-
MINUTES
INDEX
PLACE:
City Council Chambers
90 x
TIME:
7:30 p.m.
:E m -
m
DATE:
December 9,
1982
City of
Newport
Beach
XI XIXIX IX IX I* I Commissioner Allen was absent.
* * *
EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT:
James D. Hewicker, Planning Director
Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney
* * *
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator
Robert P. Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator
Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator
• Patricia Temple, Senior Planner
Donald Webb, City Engineer
Pamela Woods, Secretary
* *
Staff advised the Commission that the applicants for
items No. 14 and 15 - Use Permit No. 3006 and
Resubdivision No. 736, Item No. 24 - Use Permit No.
3012, and Item No. 6 - Use Permit No. 3013, have
requested that these items be continued to the Planning
Commission Meeting of January 6, 1983.
Motion X Motion was made to continue, the above stated items to
All Ayes X X X X' * the Planning Commission Meeting of January 6, 1983,
which MOTION CARRIED.
* * *
-1-
MINUTES
INDEX
m � m
cam` T �y D
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
General Plan Amendment 81 -3 (GPA 81 -3) (Public Hearing) Item Nos.
Request to amend the Newport Beach General Plan for 1 thru 4
Block 900 of Newport Center so as to allow the
expansion of the existing Marriott Hotel with the
addition of 234 guest rooms, a ballroom, cocktail
lounges and restaurants, a video game room, related
hotel and service facilities, and a 574 space parking .
structure. The proposal also includes the acceptance
of an environmental document. _
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach CONDI
AND
Traffic Study (Public Hearing)
1111 1111 Request to consider a Traffic Study so as to allow the
expansion of the Marriott Hotel.
.
AND
Site Plan Review No. 29 (Discussion)
Request to approve the proposed site plan in
conjunction with the expansion of the existing Marriott
Hotel and to permit required off - street parking on a
demonstrated formula.
AND
Use Permit No. 2095 (Public Hearing)
Request to allow for the establishment of an electronic
video game center in the expanded Marriott Hotel
facility. This proposal also includes modifications to
the Zoning Code so as to allow for the use of compact
car spaces and automobile spaces that are not
independently accessible.
LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of.Parcel Map No. 75 -33
(Resubdivision No. 497) located at 900
Newport Center Drive, on the
southwesterly corner of Newport Center
I I I ( I ( I I Drive West and Santa Barbara Drive, in
Newport Center.
-2-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
3 x
� c
m � W
a m y City of Newport Beach
INDEX
ZONE: C -O -H
APPLICANT: Marriott Hotel, Bethesda, MD
OWNER: Same as applicant
Agenda Items No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were heard concurrently,
due to their relationship.
Commissioner Balalis stated that he has reviewed the
previous Planning Commission minutes and staff reports
relating to these items. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant
City Attorney, stated that Commissioner Balalis would
therefore be entitled to participate and vote on these
matters.
• The public hearing opened in connection with these
items and Mr. Dave Neish, of Urban Assist, representing
the Marriott Corporation, appeared before the
Commission. Mr. Neish stated that he would be happy to
answer any further questions the Commission may have at
this time.
Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition of
Approval No. 61 for the Site Plan Review and suggested
wording which would provide for employee and valet
parking spaces to be placed in the more remote areas of
the parking lot and the short term parking being placed
in a location where it is more convenient and more
accessible to the entrances of the hotel. Further, if
it is possible, that the access to those parking
facilities be provided in such a way that employees
using the parking lot would not have to pass through in
such a way as to interfere with the vehicular.movements
of the hotel guests and other persons utilizing the
facility.
In response to a question, posed by Chairman King, Mr.
Burnham stated that requiring such a condition .for
employee parking would not expose the City to liability,
in the event of a personal attack upon an employee.
• i I I I I I I 1 -3-
December 9, 1982
� 7;2- mCity of Newport Beach
Planning Director Hewicker stated that the total costs
of the Marriott's fair share improvements would be as
follows: The noise walls for both the Jamboree, West
Newport and the Irvine Terrace facilities would be
$132,050.00 and highway improvements for the
intersection of Coast Highway and Superior Avenue would
amount to $160,000.00. He stated that combined, these
two figures amount to a total of $292,050.00..'
In addition, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the
minimum amount that the City would be requesting for
Coast Highway improvements in the vicinity of Bayside'
Drive for the third left hand turn westbound lane would
be $70,000.00. And, the hotel's share for the signal
to be installed at the intersection of Santa Barbara
Drive and Newport Center Drive would amount to
approximately $50,000.00. He stated that combined,
these two figures amount to a total of $120,000.00. He.
stated that combining all of the figures given amounts
• to $412,050.00.
Planning Director Hewicker stated that in addition to
these amounts, there is also a resolution in the
General Plan Amendment pertaining to an additional sum
of money to pay for general traffic improvements in the
vicinity of the hotel. Mr. Fred Talarico,
Environmental Coordinator stated that as other projects
are approved and if this project is approved, the fair
share amount will go down. He stated that the intent
of the resolution is to establish a fixed point which
the amount could not go below.
Planning Director Hewicker stated that the City's
Police Department would respond to any problems
relating to the enforcement of the handicapped parking
spaces. Commissioner Balalis stated that abuse of the
handicap parking spaces by the applicant would be in
violation of the Site Plan Review.
In response to a question posed ,by Commissioner
McLaughlin, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that
the total cost for the Coast Highway widening as
outlined in option (D) of the staff report would amount
to three and one -half to four million dollars. He
reiterated that this would be the total cost, not. the
• applicant's fair share.
-4-
MINUTES
INDEX
COMMISSIONERS
December 9, 1982
3 z
� r c
City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
I ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX
•
•
Planning Director Hewicker stated that until the total
cost for all highway improvements can'be determined for
the ultimate development for Newport Center, the total
cost for the Marriott's fair share of improvements for
the Coast Highway widening can not be determined.
In response to a
McLaughlin, Planning
amount of $412,050.(
plus the fair share
system improvements,
of Coast Highway.
question posed by Commissioner
Director Hewicker stated that the
)0 is currently being considered,
of other highway and circulation
not necessarily for the widening
Ms. Jean Watt, President of SPON, Stop Polluting, Our
Newport, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Watt
stated that they are in favor of the proposed parking
structure which has been designed partially
underground. However, she expressed their concern that
there must be a consistency in the planning of overall
growth for the City. She asked that the Environmental
Impact Report for the Marriott expansion list the
committed and proposed projects, including the plans
for the Irvine Coast, which will impact the circulation
system and an analysis of these impacts. She stated
that the Marriott expansion will utilize circulation
system capacity which may be allocated to other
projects.
Ms. Watt did state however, that the density of the
proposed expansion is in the appropriate location. -She
stated that she has no objections to the Marriott
Hotel, from the standpoint that it is not in anyone's
immediate backyard. .
Commissioner- McLaughlin asked Ms. Watt if .they are
asking for a moratorium on hotels within the City. Ms.
Watt stated that they have not specified this.
Ms. Watt stated that she disagrees with the system
utilized in determining the impact on Sohn Wayne
Airport. She stated that they are very concerned with
this issue.
-5-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
INDEX
Chairman King stated that it would be impossible to
postpone decisions on projects within the City while
waiting for the down coast projects to be determined.
He stated that it is in the City's best interest to
have jurisdictional control over the hotel space which
is built within the City, rather than having no
jurisdictional control over hotel space which is built
in surrounding areas.
Chairman King stated that by gaining jurisdictional
control over the hotel space, the City can obtain the
revenues to support improvements to the circulation
system.
Ms. Watt stated that the number of hotels will.continue
to increase in all the surrounding cities. She stated
that the proposed expansion will generate one more
airline trip per day. Chairman King stated that this
may happen whether the hotel was in Irvine or Costa
Mesa.
• Chairman King stated that Newport Beach is surrounded
by visitor serving uses, which are promoted by a State
and Federal parks and recreation system which attracts
people to our City. He stated that by removing the
sources of revenue which supports the circulation
system, there will. be a deterioration of the
circulation system.
Ms. Watt referred to the traffic computer model and
stated that this no longer serves the purpose for which
it was intended. She stated that an analysis of the
impacts to the circulation system must be performed.
In response to several questions raised by Ms. Watt,
Planning Director Hewicker referred to.Pages 26 and 27
of the EIR and stated that there are a list of 40
committed projects which have been analyzed. In
addition, he referred to. Page,.28 which lists 13
specific projects or specific area plan studies. which
are either underway or in process.
Ms. Watt expressed her concern that this traffic has
not been assigned to the highway network. Planning
Director Hewicker stated that the figures which are
utilized in the EIR are at the highest level and
• maximum use under the existing zoning designation. He
stated that the totals reflect the absolute worse case
in each instance.
e m
`
�
a m
Z
A ,n
m
y D
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
INDEX
Chairman King stated that it would be impossible to
postpone decisions on projects within the City while
waiting for the down coast projects to be determined.
He stated that it is in the City's best interest to
have jurisdictional control over the hotel space which
is built within the City, rather than having no
jurisdictional control over hotel space which is built
in surrounding areas.
Chairman King stated that by gaining jurisdictional
control over the hotel space, the City can obtain the
revenues to support improvements to the circulation
system.
Ms. Watt stated that the number of hotels will.continue
to increase in all the surrounding cities. She stated
that the proposed expansion will generate one more
airline trip per day. Chairman King stated that this
may happen whether the hotel was in Irvine or Costa
Mesa.
• Chairman King stated that Newport Beach is surrounded
by visitor serving uses, which are promoted by a State
and Federal parks and recreation system which attracts
people to our City. He stated that by removing the
sources of revenue which supports the circulation
system, there will. be a deterioration of the
circulation system.
Ms. Watt referred to the traffic computer model and
stated that this no longer serves the purpose for which
it was intended. She stated that an analysis of the
impacts to the circulation system must be performed.
In response to several questions raised by Ms. Watt,
Planning Director Hewicker referred to.Pages 26 and 27
of the EIR and stated that there are a list of 40
committed projects which have been analyzed. In
addition, he referred to. Page,.28 which lists 13
specific projects or specific area plan studies. which
are either underway or in process.
Ms. Watt expressed her concern that this traffic has
not been assigned to the highway network. Planning
Director Hewicker stated that the figures which are
utilized in the EIR are at the highest level and
• maximum use under the existing zoning designation. He
stated that the totals reflect the absolute worse case
in each instance.
X
e
m m
c m m y
m-
3
•
All Ayes I J XI XI X IX IX I*
December 9,1982
MINUTES
of Newport Beach
INDEX
Ms. Watt made reference to the Traffic. Phasing
Ordinance and stated that the City does not have access
to unlimited traffic pavement area. She stated that
there are certain aspects of the impacts to the
circulation system which should be clarified for the
public's benefit.
Commissioner Goff referred to Page 68 of the EIR, The
Intersection Capacity Utilization Summary, and asked
if these include regional growth factors. Planning
Director Hewicker stated that there is a factor which
is built in for regional growth.
In response to further questions by Ms. Watt,. Planning
Director Hewicker stated that the applicant would be
required to pay for 100 percent of mitigation, yet the
project may only utilize 70 percent of the additional
capacity created, therefore there is a 30 percent
cushion built into the system.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Motion was made for approval of the Environmental
Impact Report, as follows, which MOTION CARRIED:
1. Approve the "Draft EIR, City of Newport
Beach, Marriott Hotel Expansion "GPA 81 -3"
and supportive materials thereto (including
the Final EIR for GPA 80 -3);
2. Recommend that City Council certify the
Environmental Document is complete;
3. Direct staff to prepare a Statement of Facts
and .Statement of Overriding Considerations;
and
4. Make the findings listed below:
Findings:
1. That ,the environmental document is complete
. and has been prepared in compliance with. the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy.
-7-
� x
� r c
m � m
City of
2
December 9, 1982
Beach
That the contents of the environmental
document have been considered in the various
decisions on this project.
3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of
the proposed project, all feasible mitigation
measures discussed in the environmental
document have been incorporated into the
proposed project. Specific economic, social
or other considerations make infeasible any
other potential mitigation measures or
alternative to the proposed project.
4. That the mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the proposed project, and
are expressed as conditions of approval.
The findings made in regards to approval of the
• I "Marriott Hotel Expansion GPA81 -3" project EIR apply
also to the approval of the General Plan Amendment,
Site Plan Review No. 29 and Use Permit No. 2095.
GENERAL PLAN.AMENDMENT 81 -3
Motion X Motion was made for approval of General Plan Amendment
All Ayes X X X X X 81 -3, as follows, which MOTION CARRIED;
•
1. Adopt Resolution No. 1085 recommending an
amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to the City Council as proposed
by the applicant, further recommending that
the Marriott Hotel contribute a negotiated
sum of money. approved by the City Council
towards the construction of circulation
systems improvements, and incorporating all
revisions adopted by the Planning Commission
and incorporating the Findings listed in "A"
above of this Exhibit related to this portion
of the project.
MINUTES
INDEX
MISSIONERS MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� r c
C m 7C n N D
on
Beach
INDEX
Motion
All Ayes
i}
TRAFFIC STUDY
In response to questions posed by Commissioner
Kurlander and Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Fred
Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that
approval of the Traffic Study, as outlined in Exhibit
"A" is designed for an amount not less than $70,000.00
to be selected among the alternatives. Planning
Director Hewicker stated that the alternative would
ultimately be selected by the hearing process for the
entire widening of Coast Highway.
Motion was made for approval of the Traffic Study,
subject to the following findings and conditions, which
MOTION CARRIED:
Findings:
• 1. That the Traffic Study has been prepared which
analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the
circulation system in accordance with Chapter
15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City
Policy S -1.
2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -
generated traffic will be greater than one percent
of existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak
period on any leg of the critical intersections,
and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic
service at critical intersection which will have
an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater
than .90.
3. That the Traffic Studies suggest several
circulation system improvements which will improve
the level of traffic service to an acceptable
level at all critical intersections.
4. That the proposed project, including circulation
system improvements, will neither cause nor make
worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service
on any "major ", "primary- modified'.' or "primary"
street.
� IIIIIIII -9-
MINUTES
December 9,1982
� F
m
m w City of Newport Beach
m
Conditions:
INDEX
1. That prior to the occupancy of any portion of the
project facilities other than those designed for
parking, the Circulation System Improvements
described in Table 5, page 10 of the Appendix D
"Traffic Analysis" of the "Draft EIR Marriott
Hotel Expansion - GPA 81 -3" shall have been made
(unless subsequent project approval require
modification thereto).. The Circulation System
Improvements shall be subject to the approval of
the City Traffic Engineer.
2. That prior to the issuance of any building permit
for the project the applicant shall pay their
"fair share" of the ultimate improvements to Coast
Highway as may be determined by the City.
Further, that the "fair share" shall not be less
. than the amount needed to implement a third left
turn lane north bound on Bayside Drive to Coast
Highway (unless subsequent project approval
require modification thereto). The
Circulation System Improvements shall be
subject to the approval of. the City Traffic
Engineer.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 29
Motion X Motion was made for approval of Site Plan Review No.
29, subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit
"A ", with the revision to. Condition No. 61 relating to
the parking as suggested by staff.
Commissioner Kurlander suggested that Condition No. 61
be further revised to require mandatory valet parking
for the parking structure because there is usually
resistance on the part of the public to utilize parking
structures.
Chairman King ,stated that he would agree to valet
parking as an option, but not as a mandatory
•requirement. Commissioner Balalis concurred and stated
that he would be opposed to valet parking.
-10-
COMMISSIONERS
December 9, 1982
m 0 w.
Id City of Newport Beach
C 3 6 71 p
0
MINUTES
I ROLL CALL I I I I IM I I I INDEX I
Commissioner Goff referred to Condition No. 63,
relating to the percentage of compact parking spaces,
and suggested that the maximum of 25 percent compact
spaces be reduced to 10 percent compact spaces. He
stated that people who own compact cars do not always
park in compact spaces, unless the standard car spaces
are filled. Commissioner McLaughlin and Commissioner
Kurlander concurred.
Chairman King stated that this would change the entire
site plan for the project. Planning Director Hewicker
stated that 25 percent compact spaces is within the
range of which has been approved by the City in the
past. Chairman King stated that a reduction in the
number of compact spaces will essentially make. the
parking situation worse, because the number of parking
spaces available will be greatly reduced. Commissioner
Goff stated that it would not be his intention to
decrease the amount of available parking spaces.
• Mr. Neish stated that they are proposing 22 percent
compact parking spaces, which has been an acceptable
figure in the past. He stated that a reduction down to
10 percent compact spaces would eliminate approximately
80 parking spaces. Planning Director Hewicker stated
that the size of the structure would have to be
increased to accommodate 80 more standard parking
spaces.
In response to a question.posed by Chairman King, Mr.
Neish stated that approximately 100 cars can be
accommodated in the off -site parking location at
Newport Center for overflow parking and special events.
Mr. Neish stated that there are more than 10 percent of
the cars on the road today which are compact cars.
Chairman King stated that he has heard that 40 to 50
percent of the cars on the road today are compact cars.
Commissioner Balalis stated that 22 to 25 percent
compact spaces have been granted on a.regular basis.
Commissioner Goff stated that many people drive compact
cars because of the fuel prices. He stated that with
fuel prices starting to come down, there will be a
trend towards larger cars.
•
-11-
COMMISSIONERS
m � m
m y.
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Amendment
X
Amendment to the motion was made by Commissioner Goff
Ayes
X
X
X
to reduce the percentage of compact spaces to a maximum
Noes
X
X
X
of 10 percent of the total parking spaces, which
Absent
*-
AMENDMENT FAILED.
Original Motion by Commissioner McLaughlin for approval
All Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
*
of Site Plan Review No. 29, subject to the findings and
conditions of Exhibit "A ", with the revision to
Condition No. 61 relating to the parking as suggested
by staff, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED, as
follows:'
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 29
Findings:
1. The proposed development is consistent with
• the General Plan and the adopted Local
Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and will not
preclude the attainment of General Plan
objectives and policies.
2. The proposed development will not adversely
affect the benefits of occupancy and use of
existing properties within the area.
3. The proposed development does not adversely
affect the public benefits derived from
expenditures of public funds for improvement
and beautification of street and public
facilities within the area.
4. The proposed development promotes the
maintenance of superior site location
characteristics adjoining major thoroughfares
of City -wide importance.
5. That the Findings listed in "A" of this
Exhibit are made related to this portion of
the project.
I I I I 6. Adequate parking spaces and related vehicular
circulation will be provided in conjunction
• with the proposed development.
-12-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� r c
City of Newport Beach
INDEX
7. That the .establishment of compact parking
spaces and spaces that are not independently
accessible 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
neighborhood of such proposed use or be
detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the
general welfare of the City and further that
the proposed modifications are consistent
with the legislative intent. of Title 20 of
this Code.
Conditions:
1. Development of the site shall be subject to a
grading permit to be approved by the Building
.
and Planning Departments.
2. That a grading plan, if required, shall
include a complete plan for temporary and
permanent drainage facilities, to minimize
any potential impacts from silt, debris, and
other water pollutants.
3. The grading permit shall include, if
required, a description of haul routes,
access points to the site, watering, and
sweeping program designed to minimize impact
of haul operations.
4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan,
if required, shall be submitted and be
subject to the approval of the Building
Department and a copy shall be forwarded to
the California Regional Water Quality Control'
Board, Santa Ana Region.
5. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the
project shall be evaluated and erosive
velocities. controlled as a part of the
project design.
-13-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
r{ r c
w � m
w 3 City of Newport Beach
1 ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX
6. That grading shall be conducted in accordance
with plans, prepared by a'Civil Engineer and
based. on recommendations of a soil engineer
and an engineering geologist subsequent to
the completion of a comprehensive soil and
geologic investigation of the site.
Permanent reproducible copies of the
"Approved as Built" grading plans on standard
size sheets shall be furnished to the
Building Department.
7. That erosion control measures shall be done
on any exposed slopes within thirty days
after grading or as approved by the Grading
Engineer.
8. Control of infiltration to the groundwater
system for the project shall be provided as
part of the project design.
• 9. That existing on -site drainage facilities
shall be improved or updated to the
satisfaction of the Public Works and Building
Department.
10. That prior to the issuance of any building
permits a specific soils and foundation study
shall be prepared and approved by the
Building Department.
11. Any modification of existing on -site drainage
systems or extensions of culverts for
contributory drainage from surrounding areas
shall be studies during project design and
necessary improvements installed in
conformance . with local ordinances and
accepted engineering practices and in a
manner acceptable to the City Public Works
and Building Departments.
12. The following disclosure statement of the
City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the
John Wayne 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
• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
recorded against any undeveloped site.
-14-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
Z
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
m•
INDEX
The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns,
herein, acknowledge that:
a.) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to
provide adequate air service for business
establishments which rely on such service;
b.) When an alternate air facility is available,
a complete phase out of jet service may occur
at the John Wayne Airport;
c.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to
oppose additional commercial area service
expansions at the John Wayne Airport;
d.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns,
will not actively oppose any action taken by
• the City of Newport Beach to phase out or
limit jet air service at the John Wayne
Airport.
13. That the architectural character and
landscape design established by the existing
hotel shall be maintained.
14. A landscape and irrigation plan for the
project shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect. The landscape plan
shall integrate and phase the installation of
landscaping with the proposed construction
schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any
structure, the licensed landscape architect
shall certify to the Planning Department that
the landscaping has been installed in
accordance with the prepared plan).,
15. The landscape plan shall be subject to the
review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Department and approval of the Planning and
Public Works Departments.
11111111 16. The landscape plan shall include a
maintenance program which controls the use of
• fertilizers and pesticides.
-15-
� r
c
m
S
W
c
m
m
D
-
c
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
Z
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
m•
INDEX
The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns,
herein, acknowledge that:
a.) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to
provide adequate air service for business
establishments which rely on such service;
b.) When an alternate air facility is available,
a complete phase out of jet service may occur
at the John Wayne Airport;
c.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to
oppose additional commercial area service
expansions at the John Wayne Airport;
d.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns,
will not actively oppose any action taken by
• the City of Newport Beach to phase out or
limit jet air service at the John Wayne
Airport.
13. That the architectural character and
landscape design established by the existing
hotel shall be maintained.
14. A landscape and irrigation plan for the
project shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect. The landscape plan
shall integrate and phase the installation of
landscaping with the proposed construction
schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any
structure, the licensed landscape architect
shall certify to the Planning Department that
the landscaping has been installed in
accordance with the prepared plan).,
15. The landscape plan shall be subject to the
review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Department and approval of the Planning and
Public Works Departments.
11111111 16. The landscape plan shall include a
maintenance program which controls the use of
• fertilizers and pesticides.
-15-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� 7-m City of Newport Beach
INDEX
17. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis
on the use of drought- resistant native
vegetation and be irrigated with a system
designed to avoid surface runoff and
over- watering.
18. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis
on fire- retardant vegetation.
19. Street trees shall be provided along the
public streets as required by the Public
Works Department and the Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Department.
20. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained
free of weeds and debris. All vegetation
shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a
healthy condition.
• 21. The site's existing landscape plan shall be
reviewed by a licensed landscape architect.
The existing. landscape program shall be
modified to include the concerns of the
previous conditions to the maximum extent
practicable. 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.
22. Signage and exterior lighting shall be of
similar design theme throughout the project
and shall be approved by the Planning and
Public Works Department.
23. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other
service equipment shall be shielded or
screened from view by architectural features
in a manner approved by the Planning and
Public Works Departments.
24. The elevation of the parking garage shall be
in accordance with the approved plot plan,
floor plan and elevation which are designed
to complement the existing hotel structure
and to present a visually attractive facade
. adjacent to Newport Center Drive and be
subject to further review and approval by the
Planning Department.
-16-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
iu m
City of Newport Beach
I ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX
25. Prior to issuance of any building permits
the applicant shall deposit with the City
Finance Director the sum proportional to the
percentage of future additional traffic
related to the project in the subject area,
to be used for the construction of a sound
attenuation barrier on the southerly side of
West Coast Highway in the West Newport Area.
26. Prior to issuance of any grading and or
building permits the applicant shall deposit
with the City Finance Director the sum
proportional to the percentage of future
additional traffic related to the project in
the subject area, to be used for the
construction of a sound attenuation barrier
on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between
Eastbluff Drive (No.) and Ford Road.
27. Prior to issuance of any building permits the
• applicant shall deposit with the City Finance
Director the sum proportional to the
percentage of future additional traffic
related to the project in the subject area,
to be used for the construction of a sound .
attenuation barrier on the southerly side of
East Coast Highway in the Irvine Terrace
area.
28. That any roof top or other mechanical
equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a
manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of
55 Dba at the property line and that any
mechanical equipment and emergency power
generators shall be screened from view.
29. Interior noise levels in the proposed project
shall not exceed 45 CNEL in any .habitable
space.
30. The surface of the parking structure flooring
shall be selected so as to reduce tire squeal
in a.manner approved by the Public Works and
Planning Departments.
. 31. That prior. to the issuance of building
permits, the Fire Department shall review the
I 11, 11111 proposed plans and may require automatic fire
sprinkler protection.
-17-
� r c
a � m
c n m m D
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
I ROLL CALL I I I I III I I INDEX
32. That all buildings on the project site shall
be equipped with 'fire suppression systems
approved by the Fire Department.
33. The proposed project shall incorporate an
internal security system (i.e. security
guards, alarms, access limits after hours)
that shall be reviewed by the Police and Fire
Departments and approved by the Planning
Department.
34. That all access to the buildings be approved
by the Fire Department.
35. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants
and. Fire Department connections) shall be
approved by the Fire and Public Works
Departments.
36. That fire vehicle access, including the
proposed planter islands, shall be approved
by the Fire Department.
37. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a
program for the sorting of recyclable
material form other solid wastes shall be
developed and .approved by the . Planning
Department.
38. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist
shall evaluate the site prior to commencement
of construction activities, and that all work
on the site be done in accordance with the
City's Council Policies K -5 and K -6.
39. All proposed development shall provide for
weekly vacuum sweeping of all surface parking
areas.
40. That prior to the issuance of a building
permit the applicant shall provide the
Building Department and the Public Works
Department with a letter from the Sanitation
District stating that sewer facilities will
be available at the time of occupancy.
. 41. Prior to occupancy of any building, the
applicants shall provide written verification
from Orange County Sanitation that. adequate
sewer capacity is available to serve the
project.
MIM
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
m m
m m y. City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL I III Jill I I INDEX
0
It
42. Final design of the project shall provide for
the incorporation of water - saving devices for
project lavatories and other water -using
facilities.
43. Any construction on the site should be done
in accordance with the height restriction for
the area. Said should apply to any landscape
materials, signs, flags, etc. as well as
structures.
44. That the lighting system shall be designed
and maintained in such a manner as to conceal
the light source and to minimize light
spillage and glare to the adjacent uses. The
plans shall be prepared and signed by a
Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter
from the Engineer stating that, in his
opinion, this requirement has been met.
45. The applicant shall plan and implement a
program to encourage the use of
high- occupancy vehicles and alternate
transportation modes for employees and
visitors to the Marriott Hotel, in a manner
acceptable to the Planning Director.
46. The applicant shall provide energy - conserving
street and parking lot lighting and minimize
decorative or non - functional lighting in a
manner acceptable to Planning Director.
47. The project shall incorporate the use of
alternative. energy technology into building
designs and .systems for heating pools and
spas at the hotel. Prior to the issuance of
any building permit for said the ,applicant
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director that the concerns of this
condition have been met.
48. Wastewater flow from the proposed project
shall not exceed the maximum 5,820 gpd /acre.
The developer shall consult with Orange
County Sanitation District No. 5 to ensure
the incorporation of adequate mitigation
measures into the design plans.
-19-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� r c
ro � m
m o y. City of Newport Beach
INDEX
49. A grease trap system shall be designed and
incorporated into the hotel site design, to
the satisfaction of the City of Newport
Beach Building and Utilities Departments.
The location of the greasetrap shall be
easily accessible and a city representative
shall be allowed access to inspect the system
at all times. The applicant shall also
supply to the City for approval a grease trap
maintenance program that provides for ongoing
maintenance and inspections
50. A bus turnout and shelter shall be provided
in a location and according to the
specifications of the Orange County Transit
District and the City of Newport Beach.
51. Fugitive dust emissions during construction
shall be minimized by watering the site for
dust control, containing excavated soil
• onsite until it is hauled away, and
periodically washing adjacent streets to
remove accumulated materials.
52. Use of the shuttle service to the John Wayne
Airport for hotel patrons. shall be continued
and encouraged.
53. Hotel employees shall be encouraged to use
the OCTD transit system through provision of
subsidized bus passes.
54. The improvement of a bikeway along Newport
Center Drive shall be made in accordance with
the specifications of the City of Newport
Beach.
55. A lighting plan shall be submitted for review
by the Police Department to ensure adequate
lighting of pedestrian, walkways and parking
.areas.
56. The project applicant shall obtain an
agreement to utilize Fashion Island or other
adjacent facilities, during the construction
period, for overflow parking during peak
periods, and for special events. Said
agreement shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney and Planning Department
prior to the issuance of any building or
grading permits.
-20-
C.n
� z
� r c
c a n m D
.o
December 9,1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
I ROLL CALL I I I I I I H I INDEX
•
57. That all conditions of the approved Traffic
Study be met.
58. That all applicable conditions of Use Permit
No. 2095 be met.
59. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved site plan, sign .
plans, floor plans, and elevations, except as
noted in the conditions of approval.
60. That 1.31 parking spaces for each guest room
be provided in .a manner acceptable to the
City Traffic Engineer and Planning
Department. This may include tandem spaces
to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer
and Planning Department.
61. That the final design of all onsite vehicular
and pedestrian circulation, and parking be
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic
Engineer and Planning Department. Employee
and valet parking spaces shall he provided in
the more remote areas of the parking lot and
the short term parking shall.be provided in a
location where it is more convenient and more
accessible to the entrances of the hotel.
Further, that access to the parking
facilities shall be provided in such a way
that employees shall not interfere with the
vehicular movements of hotel guests and other
persons utilizing the facility.
62. That parking spaces shall be provided for
handicapped persons and located in a manner
approved by the City Traffic Engineer and
Building Department.
63. That a maximum of 25% of the total parking
spaces may be compact spaces and shall be
located in a manner approved by the City
Traffic Engineer.
-21-
MMISSIONERS
December 9,1982
e`
m � m
m y. City of Newport Beach
64. That a plan for tandem parking for both
normal operations and peak periods shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic
Engineer.
65. and 66. Deleted because they were duplicates.
67. That all improvements be constructed as
required by ordinance and the Public works
Department.
68. That a standard agreement and accompanying
bonds be provided in order to guarantee
satisfactory completion of the public
improvements, if it is desired to obtain 'a
building permit prior to completion of the
public improvements.
69. That the existing sidewalk along Newport
• Center Drive be widened to 8 feet, and that
access ramps be provided at the northerly
drive entrance on Newport Center Drive.
70. That a contribution of 50% of the traffic
signal cost, at the intersection of Santa
Barbara Avenue and Newport Center Drive, be
paid as condition for issuance of any
building permits.
71. That the deteriorated drive apron on Santa
Barbara Avenue be reconstructed and the
displaced sidewalk be reconstructed at the
intersection of Santa Barbara Avenue and
Newport Center and at the northerly drive
apron on Newport Center Drive.
72. The ,applicant shall provide a "Fire Lane "'
having a minimum, width of 26 feet on the
parking structure and be stressed to support
a 57,000 pound fire truck.
73. Turning radius onto the "Fire Lane" shall be
approved by the Fire Department.
I I I I I I I 74. The entrances and exists shall be designed to
• provide adequate sight distance in accordance
with City standards.
_22_
MINUTES
INDEX
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
M �.
� � c
m y. City of Newport Beach
I ROLL CALL I I I I III I I INDEX
USE PERMIT NO. 2095
Motion I Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 2095,
All Ayes X 2 2 X X X * subject to the following findings and conditions of
Exhibit "A ", which MOTION CARRIED:
Findings:
1. That the proposed entertainment center is
consistent with the Land Use Element of the
General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal
Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible
with surrounding land uses.
2. That the finding listed in "A" of this
Exhibit are made related to this portion of
the project.
• 3. The Police Department has indicated that they
do not contemplate any problems with the
proposed entertainment center at this
location.
4. That the waiver of the development standards
pertaining to the hours of operation for
persons under 18 years, of age and to the
proximity of residential uses be permitted
inasmuch as no adverse impact to the nearby
residential uses I or other adjoining
businesses will occur as.a result of this
development. The area in which the proposed
facility is to be located is to provide a
facility for visitors to the hotel and
visitors to the. area. The proposed facility
will not adversely impact the nearby
residences anymore than the existing uses in
the vicinity.
5. The approval of Use Permit No. 2095 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.
-23-
9
e`
m � m
Qm x c) m a
9 j
Of
December 9, 1982
t Beach
MINUTES
� ROLL CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX
is
Conditions:
1. The development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan and
floor plan except as noted below.
2. All electronic video game machines within the
hotel shall be visible to, and supervised by
an adult attendant. The attendant shall be
available at all .times that electronic video
game machines are. available for use, to
insure that there is no conduct on or off the
premises that is detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare.
3. The permits for each skill games shall be
issued by the License Division.
4. That noise from the skill games center shall
be confined to the interior of the facility.
5. In the event that food is dispensed on the
premises, adequate waste receptacles shall be
located in the vicinity of the video game
machines.
6. That the development standards related to
hours of operation for persons under 18 years
of age and proximity to residential uses are
waived. .
7. That all applicable conditions of Site Plan
Review No. 29 shall be met.
x
-24-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� r �
m a m
3 m m o y. City of Newport Beach
ROIL CALL 1 1 1 1 Jill I INDEX I
Request to consider a proposed amendment to Chapter
20.75 of the Municipal Code, the Video Game Ordinance,
and the acceptance of an environmental document.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
Planning Director Hewicker presented background
information on this item. He stated that the City
Attorney's Office has prepared amendments to the
Newport Beach Municipal Code transferring the
responsibility for the regulation of video games from
the Planning Department and Planning Commission to the
City Manager and the License Department. He further
stated that it is recommended that the Planning
Commission initiate an amendment to Chapter 20.87
adding a definition of "Recreational Establishment ".
Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern that the
determination of adequate parking will be left to the
discretion of the License Supervisor. He stated that
currently, the public has the opportunity to express
their views at a public hearing under the use permit
process where there is a waiver of standards.
Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that
the development standards adopted by the Commission as
a part of the Video Game Ordinance did not include
additional parking as a requirement for the
installation of video games. He stated that the burden
is. .upon the City to justify the waiver, of those
standards. Mr. Burnham 'stated that in the vast
majority of cases, there would not be a.real additional
demand for parking with the installation of one or two
video games within a market or retail establishment.
Mr. Burnham 'stated that from his discussions with Ms.
Judy Franco and the representatives of the PTA, the
Video Game Ordinance was adopted as the result of
problems which existed with one or two video game
businesses within the City. He stated that other than
those two businesses, there have been no other
complaints. He stated that they have tried to give the,
License Supervisor tools to utilize in the regulation
of certain businesses which are perceived as being a
. problem.
-25-
Item #5
AMENDMENT
NO. 578
RECOMMENDED
TO ADD
DEFINITION
OF . "RECRE-
OF THE
MUNICIPAL"
CODE
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� c
m y. City of Newport Beach
INDEX
Mr. Burnham stated that he could draft some additional
language which would allow public notice for the
application of a skill games permit. Commissioner
Balalis suggested that the skill games be handled by
the Modifications Committee.
Planning Director Hewicker.stated that the City Council
has the authority to review all regulatory permits.
Mr. Burnham stated that this is correct.
Chairman King asked how the City Council would be
notified of the skill game regulatory permits issued by
the License Department. Mr. Burnham stated that if
there were a problem with a particular skill game
permit, an individual could register a complaint with
the City Council.
Commissioner Balalis suggested that someone from the
Planning Department should have the opportunity to at
• least review the applications of the License Department
for skill game permits. Mr. Burnham explained the
revenue raising aspects of the Business License
Department. He stated that there will be further
interaction between the License Department and Planning
Department in the future..
Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she is still
opposed to the age limit of 18 which is imposed in the
regulation of video games. She stated that persons at
the age of 16 and 17 can date and drive cars, yet they
can not operate .video games during the restricted
hours.
Chairman King stated that the concerns of the Planning
Commission as so noted in the discussion should be
forwarded to the City Council.
Motion
X
Motion was made to recommend to the City Council that
Ayes
x
X
X
X
the definition of Recreational Establishment, as
Noes
X
suggested by the City Attorney's Office, be added . to
Absent
*
Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code and to rescind Chapter
20.75 - The Video Game.Ordinance, which MOTION CARRIED.
• I' I I' I I I * **
-26-
MISSIONERS MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� r c
D
E
Motion I (
All Ayes X X X IX X
•
of Newport Beach
INDEX
Request to allow the construction of a fourth level Item #6
observation deck on an existing duplex in the R -3
District which exceeds the basic height limit on the
rear one -half of the lot in the 28.32 Foot 'Height
Limitation District.
LOCATION:- Portions of Lots No. 14, 16, and 18,
Block 231, Corona del Mar Tract, located
at 314 Carnation Avenue, on the easterly
side of vacated Carnation Avenue,
between. Seaview Avenue and Bayside
Drive, in Corona del Mar.
ZONE: R -3
APPLICANTS: Harvey D. Pease and Bomell Pease, --
Corona del Mar
OWNER: Same as applicants
Staff advised the Commission that the applicants for
Item No. 6 - Use Permit No. 3013, have requested that
this item be continued to the Planning Commission
Meeting of January 6, 1983.
Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning
Commission Meeting of January 6, 1983, .which MOTION
CARRIED.
Data analysis of the West Newport Area involving
properties generally bounded by West Coast Highway,
Newport Boulevard, 16th Street and Newport
Crest /Banning.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
Chairman King 'requested. an additional residential
definition relating to the West Newport Area. .For
example, whether the total buildable area was a portion.
of the remaining total number of dwelling units and
identified in the report. He stated that further
discussion is needed before a decision can be made on
this matter.
-27-
WEST
NEWPORT
STUDY
ZMA"
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
i F
� c
City of Newport Beach
I ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX
Chairman King noted that there were two individuals
which had attended the meeting to discuss this item.
Both individuals stated that they would be able to
attend a Study Session on January 20, 1982, to further
discuss this item.
Motion Motion was made to continue the data analysis of the
Ayes X X West Newport Study Area to a Study Session on January
Noes. X 20, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED.
Absent
* * *
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and
reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
• I I I I I I( I * **
Use Permit No. 2026 (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to convert an existing duplex into a two unit
residential condominium. The proposal also includes a
variance so as to allow said conversion on an existing
lot which is less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area.
mob
Resubdivision No. 697 (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to establish a single parcel of land for
residential condominium purposes where one lot
presently exists.
LOCATION: Lot 6, Block 34, Newport Beach Tract,
located at 3411 Seashore Drive on the
southerly side of Seashore Drive between
34th Street and 35th Street, in West
Newport.
• I I I I { I I I ZONE: R -2
-28-
Continued
to a.Study.
Session on
January
20, 1983
Items No.
8 thru 13
PROPERTIES
WEST
ALL
DENIED
� r
m m
c m 7c m > City of
December 9, 1982
t Beach
MINUTES
I ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX
C
•
WE
Use Permit No. 3001 (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to convert an existing duplex into a two unit
residential condominium. The proposal also includes a
variance so as to allow said conversion on an existing
lot which is less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area.
MA
Resubdivision No. 733 (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to establish a single parcel of land for
residential condominium purposes where one lot
presently exists.
LOCATION: A portion of Section 29, Township 6,
South Range 10 West, San Bernardino.
Meridian, located at 146 47th Street, on
the southeasterly corner of 47th Street
and River Avenue in West Newport.
ZONE: R -2
AND
Use Permit No. 3002 (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to convert an existing duplex into a two unit
residential condominium. The proposal also includes a
variance so as to allow said conversion on an existing
lot which is less than 5,000 sq.ft. in area.
AND
Resubdivision No. 732 (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to establish a single parcel of land for
residential condominium purposes where one lot
presently exists.
LOCATION: Lot 27, Block 33, Newport Beach Tract,
located. at 107 33rd Street, on the
southwesterly corner of Seashore Drive
and 33rd Street, in west Newport.
-29-
MISSIONERS
December 9, 1982
m � m
a�om> City Of
Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL I III III I I INDEX
ZONE:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
ENGINEER:
ME
Properties West, Inc., Newport Beach
Same as applicant
Ron Miedema, Costa Mesa
Agenda Items No. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 were heard
concurrently due to their relationship.
The public hearing opened in connection with these
items and Mr. Richard Hogan, representing the
applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Hogan
stated that the original applications on these units'
were made in September of 1981, prior to the proposed
conversion ordinance. He stated that the applicant had
acted under the mistaken belief that occupancy of the
• units would not jeopardize the applications. He stated
that none of the units had been occupied for over a six
week period initially. He stated that the units were
never designed to be duplex rental units, but they were
designed as condominium units. He stated that no one
could have anticipated that the City Council could not
act upon the proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance
because of a possible conflict of interest. He stated
that this has created a hardship for the applicant and
requested that these items be approved. He stated that
all of the requirements of the Condominium Conversion
Ordinance have been met, with the exception of the
5,000 square foot lot requirement.
Mr. Hogan stated that in view of the extremely unusual
circumstances surrounding these applications, approval
of these items could not be considered precedent
setting. He stated that the Planning Commission has
the right. to grant variances when they are justified
through unnecessary and unintended hardships.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff,
Planning Director Hewicker stated that the 5,000 square
foot lot limitation only applies to conversions, not
to the construction of new condominiums. He stated
• that because the units have been occupied, they are
being treated as conversions, as opposed to new
condominiums.
-30-
COMMISSICNERS
December 9, 1982
w m
m m u = City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
1 ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX
In. response to a question posed by Commissioner
Winburn, Mr. Hogan referred to the staff report
prepared for Use Permit No. 3002, page two, and stated
that the date should indicate 1981, rather than 1982.
Commissioner Balalis asked the definition of
"occupied ", and whether it applies to one hour, one
week, one month, and so on. Planning Director Hewicker
stated that the Municipal Code does not specify the
concept of occupancy or the amount of time needed for
occupancy. He stated that he utilizes what the
Planning Commission has practiced in the past relating
to occupancy.
Mr. Dana Smith, the President of Properties West, Inc.,
appeared before the Commission. Mr. Smith stated that
this is a very unusual situation and that his property
• rights have been injured. He discussed the background
information relating to these applications and the
background information of the proposed Condominium
Conversion ordinance, which began over one year ago.
Mr. Smith stated that each of the units were designed
as condominiums with separate and individual utility
connections. Further, he stated that the project lot
size conforms to the Code and is consistent with the
adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. He
also stated that adequate on -site parking has been
provided.
Mr. Smith explained that these units had been rented
out for a few weeks during the summer. He stated that
at that time he was not aware that this would create a
problem. However, he stated that he was informed by
staff that if the units had been occupied, they could
not be presented as new condominiums. Therefore, he
stated that he removed these applications from the
Planning Commission agenda until the proposed
Condominium Conversion Ordinance could be acted upon.
He then stated that he did not realize that the
proposed ordinance would take over one, year for the
City to hear and that the City Council would then
disallow the introduction of the ordinance due to a
• conflict of interest.
-31-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� c
City of Newport Beach
INDEX
Mr. Smith stated that during the time period he was
waiting for action on the proposed conversion
ordinance, the condominium units were rented out
because of the economic hardship which was being
created. He stated that approval of these items would
not set a precedence, because of the unusual
circumstances involved with these items. He asked that
the Planning Commission excuse him for not knowing the
occupancy rules when he rented out the units for a few
weeks in the very beginning..
Commissioner Balalis stated that the intent of the
proposed ordinance was to preclude buildings which had
already been built and had been rented for sometime and
then brought back to the Planning Commission to be
converted as condominium units. He stated that he
believes that the intent of these items show that the
units were built as condominiums and that immediately
• after its completion, the applicant applied for a use
permit and resubdivision to establish this fact.
Chairman King asked staff if wording could be provided
which would protect the City from setting a precedent,
in the event these applications were to be approved.
Chairman King further asked if the variance proceeding
is the only avenue available for the applicant to
pursue.
Mr. Bob. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that
by utilizing more specific language in the findings
which the Planning Commission may make on these
particular applications, there would be less of a
precedent setting impact.
Mr. Burnham stated that when these units were
originally built, they were built as rental units, in
that there was no condominium form of ownership
established at the time of their construction. He
stated that the applicant did not apply for a use
permit to allow for the construction of residential
condominiums. He .stated that the. applicant was
operating under the misapprehension that the original
amendments to the Housing Element would be adopted by
• the City Council.
-32-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
m a
m m q. t City of Newport Beach
INDEX
Mr. Burnham stated that under the circumstances of
these particular items, the Planning Commission would
have the right to grant the applicant relief. However,
he expressed a concern as to whether the conversions
are consistent with the provisions of the new Housing
Element.
In response to questions posed by Chairman King, Mr.
Burnham stated that the units were identified as rental
units versus sale units because when they were first
built, they were not built under a condominium form, of
ownership with a single parcel, common areas, and
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC &R'S) . He
stated that in addition to obtaining a use permit, the
applicant would have had to comply with the Department
of Real Estate regulations for condominiums, if the
project were initially built as a condominium project.
Commissioner Balalis stated that the City has never
• really operated under these conditions. He stated that
in the past, an . applicant could apply for the
resubdivision and use permit for a condominium project
concurrently with the building process of the project.
Mr. Burnham stated that in reviewing the ordinance,
occupancy is not a key factor, it appears as though it
is the nature of the ownership at the time of the
building of the unit. He stated that this ordinance
was not designed to address this particular situation.
Commissioner Balalis stated that if this is the case,
the ordinance should be modified to reflect that if
building permits are issued for a rental unit, then
said rental unit can not be converted at any, time after
that. He further stated that this was never the intent
of the ordinance.
Chairman King stated that if
fund the construction of
condominium conversion map
intent of the project may
stated that a line must be
condominium conversions.
!nding institutions will not
such projects, unless a
is filed, even though the
be for rental units. He
drawn on the definition of
• I I( I I I I -33-
COMMISSIONERS
December 9, 1982
of NewDort Beach
MINUTES
1 ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX
Planning Director Hewicker stated the condominiums are
a form of ownership, it is not how a particular project
is perceived or constructed. He stated that duplexes
and condominiums can be identical in construction. He
stated that the only difference is the way in which the
ownership is legally described in the documents that
are required by the Department of Real Estate and The
City of Newport Beach.
Commissioner Balalis stated that the manner in which
the City's Ordinance is worded, any sale of any
interest with the use of one particular unit
constitutes a condominium. Therefore, there are many
forms of condominium ownership being created despite
the City's requirements for a use permit and map.
In response to a question posed by Chairman King,
• Planning Director Hewicker stated that the ordinance
does not instruct the applicant that the units can not
be rented prior to the application.
Mr. Hogan discussed real estate practices in
relationship with construction of such projects. He
stated that it has been the practice within the City,
to obtain building permits and begin construction
without making an application for condominiums. He
stated that the condominium application was then
submitted and considered based upon the intent.of the
applicant.
Commissioner Goff stated
confusing, he stated that
conversions would be inc
policies of the General
that he would be making
proposed requests.
that although this issue is
approval of these condominium
onsistent with the .goals and
Plan. Therefore, he stated
a motion for denial of the
Mr. Burnham stated that if desired, staff could supply
the Planning. Commission with findings and conditions
for approval of these applications, at the next
•
meeting.
-34-
� r
c
�
w
x
n
m
a
c
n
0
m
-m
-m�
December 9, 1982
of NewDort Beach
MINUTES
1 ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX
Planning Director Hewicker stated the condominiums are
a form of ownership, it is not how a particular project
is perceived or constructed. He stated that duplexes
and condominiums can be identical in construction. He
stated that the only difference is the way in which the
ownership is legally described in the documents that
are required by the Department of Real Estate and The
City of Newport Beach.
Commissioner Balalis stated that the manner in which
the City's Ordinance is worded, any sale of any
interest with the use of one particular unit
constitutes a condominium. Therefore, there are many
forms of condominium ownership being created despite
the City's requirements for a use permit and map.
In response to a question posed by Chairman King,
• Planning Director Hewicker stated that the ordinance
does not instruct the applicant that the units can not
be rented prior to the application.
Mr. Hogan discussed real estate practices in
relationship with construction of such projects. He
stated that it has been the practice within the City,
to obtain building permits and begin construction
without making an application for condominiums. He
stated that the condominium application was then
submitted and considered based upon the intent.of the
applicant.
Commissioner Goff stated
confusing, he stated that
conversions would be inc
policies of the General
that he would be making
proposed requests.
that although this issue is
approval of these condominium
onsistent with the .goals and
Plan. Therefore, he stated
a motion for denial of the
Mr. Burnham stated that if desired, staff could supply
the Planning. Commission with findings and conditions
for approval of these applications, at the next
•
meeting.
-34-
COMMISSONERS
December 9, 1982
� r c
y City of Newport Beach
MINUTES
I ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX
Chairman King stated that he would not be supporting a
motion for denial because he does not support the way
in which the Condominium Conversion Ordinance is
written.
Commissioner Goff stated that he does not necessarily
support the way in which the Condominium Conversion
Ordinance is written, however, he stated that it is an
ordinance which is consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Balalis recommended that the Assistant
City Attorney and the Planning Director pursue a final
discussion as to whether or not the ordinance applies
to the length of time of occupancy or the practices as
to what the property was intended originally. He
stated that his definition should be considered which
is, that if the building has been designed with two
sewers, two water lines, all the necessary
appurtenances to the building that would be normally
required for a condominium under our ordinance, that it
constitutes a divisible unit and that is what it was
originally built for.
Motion X Motion was made for denial of USE PERMIT NO. 2026,
Ayes X X subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit "A ",
Noes X X which MOTION CARRIED, as follows:
Absent
1. The proposed condominium conversion is not
consistent with those goals and policies of the
General Plan which seek to maintain rental housing
opportunities by restricting conversions.of rental
units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in
Newport Beach for rental housing is 5 percent or
higher for four consecutive quarters. The most
recent vacancy rate survey indicates a 3.9$ rental
vacancy rate.
2. The subject property contains less than 5,000
square feet of land area. .
•
-35-
3
�
� r c
a m
x
W y
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX
C,
J
Motion X
Ayes X X
Noes X llxl*
Absent
3., That there are no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applying to the subject property,
structure, or use, which circumstances or
conditions do not apply generally to land,
buildings and /or uses in the same district, that
would justify or support the applicant's request
to convert a rental structure to a condominium use
on a parcel containing less that the minimum land
area of 5,000 square feet.
4. That the granting of the application is not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant
inasmuch as the subject property has been
developed with a two -unit residential rental
structure.
5. That approval of this request would establish a
precedent for similar requests that collectively
would have a deleterious effect on the rental
housing supply in the City.
6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the
use or building applied for shall, under the
circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort
and general welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be
detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood and the general
welfare of the City, inasmuch as the project will
decrease the rental housing in the City.
Motion was made for denial of RESU13DIVISION NO. 697,
subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit "A ",
which MOTION CARRIED, as follows:
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed resubdivision is not consistent
with all ordinances of the City. Specifically, the
requirements for a minimum lot size of 5,000
square feet for condominium conversions has not
been met.
-36-
Motion
Ayes
Noes
Absent
� r c
c ? n x G) m
XI 111
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
INDEX
2. That the proposed resubdivision is not consistent
with the General Plan, which seeks to maintain
rental housing opportunities by restricting
condominium conversions.
3. That the Planning Commission is not satisfied with
the plan of subdivision.
Motion was made for denial of USE PERMIT NO. 3001,
subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit "A ",
which MOTION CARRIED, as follows:
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed condominium conversion is not
consistent with those goals and policies of the
General Plan which.seek to maintain rental housing
opportunities by restricting conversions of rental
units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in
Newport Beach for rental housing is 5 percent or
higher for four consecutive quarters. The most
recent vacancy rate survey indicates a 3.9% rental
vacancy rate.
2. The subject property contains less than 5,000
square feet of land area.
3. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applying to the subject property,
structure, or use, which circumstances or
conditions do not apply generally to land,
buildings and /or uses in the same district, that
would justify or support the applicant's request
to convert a rental structure to a condominium use
on a parcel containing less that, the. minimum land
area of 5,000 square feet.
4. That the granting of the application is not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
• substantial property rights of the applicant
inasmuch as the subject property has been
developed with a two -unit residential rental
structure.
-37-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� x
m m
m y. City of Newport Beach
I R O L L CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX
5.. That approval of this request would establish a
precedent for similar requests that collectively
would have a deleterious effect on the rental
housing supply in the City.
6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the
use or building applied for shall, under the
circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort
and general welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be
detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood and the general
welfare of the City, inasmuch as the project will
decrease the rental housing in the City.
Won X Motion was made for denial of RESUBDIVISION NO. 733,
Ayes X X subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit "A ",
Noes .X X * which MOTION CARRIED, as follows:
Absent
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed resubdivision is not consistent
with all ordinances of the City. Specifically, the
requirements for a minimum lot size of 5,000
square feet for condominium conversions has not
been met.
2. That the proposed resubdivision is not consistent
with the General Plan, which seeks to. maintain
rental housing opportunities by restricting
condominium conversions.
3. That the Planning Commission is not satisfied with
the plan of subdivision.
•. _38_
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� r c
_. m = W
m o i�- City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX
Motion
Ayes
Noes
Absent
•
I�
LJ
M '-On was made for denial of USE X IX I I XI XI XI I which MOTION to the findings
follows: r denial Pints Exhibit 30A" ,
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed condominium conversion is not
consistent with those goals and policies of the
General Plan which seek to maintain rental housing
opportunities by restricting conversions of rental
units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in
Newport Beach for rental housing is 5 percent or
higher for four consecutive quarters. The most
recent vacancy rate survey.indicates a 3.9% rental
vacancy rate.
2. The subject property contains less than 5,000
square feet of land area.
3. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applying to the subject property,
structure, or use,, which circumstances or
conditions do not apply generally to land,
buildings and /or uses in the same district, that
would justify or support the applicant's request
to convert a rental structure to a condominium use
on.a parcel containing less that the minimum land
area of 5,000 square feet.
4. That the granting of the application is not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the .applicant
inasmuch as the subject property has been
developed with a two -unit residential rental
structure.
5. That approval of this request would establish a
precedent for similar requests that collectively
would have a. deleterious effect on the rental
housing supply in the City.
-39-
COMMISSIONERS
� r c
c m 3 X G) y D
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
R O L L CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX
Motion
Ayes.
Noes
Absent
•
X IX
6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the
use or building applied for shall, under the
circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort
and general welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be
detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood and the general
welfare of the City, inasmuch as the project will
decrease the rental housing in the City.
Motion was made for denial of RESUBDIVISION NO. 732,
subject to the findings for denial in Exhibit "A ",
which MOTION CARRIED, as follows:
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed resubdivision is not consistent
with all ordinances of the City. Specifically, the
requirements for a minimum lot size of 5,000
square ,feet for condominium conversions has not
been met.
2. That the proposed resubdivision is not consistent
with the General 'Plan, which seeks to maintain
rental housing opportunities by restricting
condominium conversions.
3. That the Planning Commission is not satisfied with
the plan of subdivision.
11111111 -40-
K x
r c
.o
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
Request to waive a portion of the required off - street Item #14
parking spaces in conjunction with the proposed
expansion of an existing office building which is
presently non- conforming with regard to the number of
off - street parking spaces. The proposal also includes USE PERMIT
a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a NO. 3006
portion of an off - street parking spaces and a proposed
trash enclosure to encroach into the required 10 foot
rear yard setback adjacent to an alley.
ENGINEER: . Duca McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar
Staff advised the Commission that the applicant for
Items No. 14 and 15 - Use Permit No. 3006 and
Resubdivision No. 736, has requested that these items
be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of
January 6, 1983.
Motioh X Motion was made to continue these items to the Planning
All Ayes X X X X * Commission Meeting of January 6, 1983, which MOTION
. CARRIED.
-41-
Both
Continued
to January
AND
AND
Request to establish a single parcel of land and
eliminate interior lot lines where one lot and a
portion of two other lots presently exist so as to
allow the expansion of an existing office building.
Item #15
LOCATION: Lot 4 and a portion of Lots 5 and,6,
Tract 443, located at 504 North Newport
Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner
of North Newport Boulevard and Orange
RESUB-
Avenue in the Old Newport Boulevard
DIVISION
Specific Plan Area.
NO. 736
ZONE: C -1
APPLICANT: Thomas W. Burton, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
ENGINEER: . Duca McCoy, Inc., Corona del Mar
Staff advised the Commission that the applicant for
Items No. 14 and 15 - Use Permit No. 3006 and
Resubdivision No. 736, has requested that these items
be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of
January 6, 1983.
Motioh X Motion was made to continue these items to the Planning
All Ayes X X X X * Commission Meeting of January 6, 1983, which MOTION
. CARRIED.
-41-
Both
Continued
to January
r c
W
'v m
7 G> y
? a m
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
INDEX
Request to permit the use of electronic games of skill Item #16
in conjunction with the existing Perry's Pizza
restaurant located in the C -1 District.
LOCATION: Lots No. 1 and 2, Block 21, Newport
Beach Tract, located at 2108 3/4 West
Ocean Front, on the northerly side of
West Ocean Front, between 22nd Street USE PERMIT
and McFadden Place in McFadden Square. NO. 3007
ZONE: C -1
APPLICANT: V. and R. Enterprises, Inc., Dba Perry's
Pizza, Newport Beach
OWNER: Eileen Rapp, Borrego Springs
• Planning Director Hewicker stated that when the
restaurant was originally approved, the Planning
Commission had waived all but three parking spaces. He
stated that for several years the applicant has been
paying for in -lieu parking spaces in the Municipal lot.
Therefore, he stated that if the Planning Commission is
desirous of waiving any parking spaces, it would
involve the parking spaces which would be required for
the video games.
Planning Director Hewicker stated that of the 40
businesses in the City which have video games, there
have been only two businesses which have voluntarily
applied for the use permit, one of which is this
applicant.
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. Richard Montano, representing Perry's Pizza,
appeared before the Commission and requested approval
of this item. Mr. Montano stated that they have
operated video games in the restaurant for
approximately eight years and have never had a problem.
• 11 1 I I I -42
APPROVED
CONDI-
TIONALLY
MMISSIONERS
December 9, 1982
e y. City of Newport Beach
Motion I III IX 12S I Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3007,
All Ayes X.X X X * subject to the following findings and conditions, which
MOTION CARRIED:
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed use of video games in
conjunction with the existing restaurant use is
consistent with the Land Use Elements of the
General Plan and the Adopted Local Coastal Plan
and is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
I 2. I I ( I I I 2 The project will not have any significant
( environmental impact.
3. That the waiver of the development standards as
they pertain to required offstreet parking spaces
and the location of the subject structure within
100 feet of residences will have no greater
• adverse impact on adjacent properties or
structures than strict compliance with said
standards. The proposed operation of six video
games as an incidental use to the restaurant will
not increase the existing parking demand.
4. That the Police Department has no objections to
the proposed operation.
5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3007 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.
CONDITIONS:
1. The development shall be in substantial
conformance with the.approved plot plan and floor
plan.
2. That the .number of machines be limited to a
maximum of six machines Any increase will
require an amendment to this use permit.
-43-
MINUTES
INDEX
� r c
c n x G) = Y G
O J m iC -Ti. N J
3
N
5.
6.
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
INDEX
That this approval shall be for a period for two
years, and any extensions shall be subject to the
approval of the Modifications Committee.
That permits for the proposed skill games shall be
issued by the License Division.
That noise from the skill games center shall be
confined to the interior of the facility.
That no outside music shall be permitted.
7. All electronic video game machines within the
restaurant shall be visible to, and supervised by,
an adult attendant. The attendant - shall be
present at all times that electronic video game
machines are available for use, to insure that
there is no conduct on or off the premises that is
detrimental to the public health, safety, or
• welfare.
8. No person under the age of 18 years shall be
permitted to operate an electronic video game
before 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and after
10:00 p.m. daily, unless accompanied by a parent
or guardian. This restriction shall not apply
during school holidays and school vacation periods
recognized by schools within the Clty of Newport
Beach. It shall be the responsibility of the
applicant and the adult attendant to ensure that
these restrictions are enforced.
9. Adequate waste receptacles shall be located in the
vicinity of the video game machines.
10. The applicant shall provide bicycle racks with a
minimum capacity of 3 bicycles in a location on
the subject property that is not on public
property, and does not impede pedestrian traffic.
11. The applicant shall advise the Planning Director
of any change in the circumstances pursuant to
which the business is conducted, including but not
limited to a change,in ownership that might have a
material impact on the nature and /or intensity of
the use permitted.
-44-
December 9, 1982-
itv of Newport Beach
MINUTES
I R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX
•
Motion
All Ayes
r 1
LJ
12. That the development standards related to
offstreet parking spaces and proximity to
residential uses are waived.
13. That the operation of the video games shall be
limited to the same hours of operation for the
restaurant.
Request to establish a commercial dry cleaning facility
in an existing building located in the C -1 District.
LOCATION: Portions of Parcels No. 1 and 3 and all
of Parcel No. 2, Record of Survey 35 -25,
located at 3120 west Balboa Boulevard,
on the easterly corner of 32nd Street USE PERMIT
and West Balboa Boulevard in Central NO. 3008
Newport.
ZONE: C -1
APPLICANT: Larry Hoffman, Orange - -
APPROVED
OWNER: William J. Cagney, Jr., Newport Beach CONDI-
TIONALLY
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. Larry Hoffman, the applicant, appeared before
the Commission and requested approval of this item.
Mr. Don Atkinson, representing the owner, Mr. William
Cagney, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Atkinson
stated that they concur with the approval of this item.
Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3008,
X X X X * subject to the.following findings and conditions, which
MOTION CARRIED:
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land
Use Element of the General Plan, and the Adopted
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
-45-
� r
m
�
�
m
n
n
m a
c s
.o
December 9, 1982-
itv of Newport Beach
MINUTES
I R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX
•
Motion
All Ayes
r 1
LJ
12. That the development standards related to
offstreet parking spaces and proximity to
residential uses are waived.
13. That the operation of the video games shall be
limited to the same hours of operation for the
restaurant.
Request to establish a commercial dry cleaning facility
in an existing building located in the C -1 District.
LOCATION: Portions of Parcels No. 1 and 3 and all
of Parcel No. 2, Record of Survey 35 -25,
located at 3120 west Balboa Boulevard,
on the easterly corner of 32nd Street USE PERMIT
and West Balboa Boulevard in Central NO. 3008
Newport.
ZONE: C -1
APPLICANT: Larry Hoffman, Orange - -
APPROVED
OWNER: William J. Cagney, Jr., Newport Beach CONDI-
TIONALLY
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. Larry Hoffman, the applicant, appeared before
the Commission and requested approval of this item.
Mr. Don Atkinson, representing the owner, Mr. William
Cagney, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Atkinson
stated that they concur with the approval of this item.
Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3008,
X X X X * subject to the.following findings and conditions, which
MOTION CARRIED:
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land
Use Element of the General Plan, and the Adopted
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
-45-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� x
m � Go
m . t City of Newport Beach
R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX I
2., That approval of Use Permit No. 3008 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 the general welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial "
conformance with the approved floor plan.
2. That any boilers shall be isolated in accordance
with the requirements of the Uniform Building
Code.
3. That the use of chemicals shall be reviewed and
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
• 4. There shall be no outside storage of materials,
supplies or other paraphernalia likely to be
objectionable to the adjacent property owners or
residents.
5. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment
shall be screened from view and shall be sound
attenuated to he no greater than existing sound
levels at the property lines.
6. That prior to the occupancy of the building, a
qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the
City at the applicant's expense shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that
the noise impact of the project does not exceed
existing sound levels at the property lines.
7. That any outdoor trash containers, if proposed
shall be screened from adjoining properties.
8. That the proposed dry cleaning operation shall be
installed and operated in conformance with the
requirements of the .South Coast Air Quality
Management, District.
• IIIIIIII
-46- '
� x
� c
c N p D
Qm�sc�m—
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
INDEX
Request to change the operational characteristics of an
existing restaurant so as to add the service of beer
and wine.
LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 6939 -90, 91
(Resubdivision No. 179), located at 2931
East Coast Highway, on the southerly .
side of Ease Coast Highway between Iris
Avenue and Heliotrope Avenue, in Corona USE PERMIT
del Mar. NO. 3009
ZONE: C -1
APPLICANT: Salty's Inc. Dba Bon Appetit,
Newport Beach
OWNER: James Ray, Corona del Mar
• The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. Brooke Bentley, representing the applicant,
appeared before the Commission and requested approval
of this item. He stated that they are desirous of
offering beer and wine to their.restaurant patrons.
Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3009,
All Ayes X X X X X X * subject to the following findings and conditions, which
MOTION CARRIED:
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land
Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted
Local Coastal Plani Land Use Program and is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
2. The project will not have any significant
environmental impact.
3. The Police Department has indicated that they do
not anticipate any problems.
4. There.will.be a slight decrease in the "net public
. area" (i.e. from 296 sq.ft. to 280 sq.ft.) as a
result of the proposed development.
-47-
•
•
December 9, 1952
Of
5. The service of. beer
complex will have no
parking demand.
I'r R
and wine in the restaurant
significant impact on the
6. The Planning Commission has approved several use
permits for on -sale beer and wine in other
existing restaurant facilities throughout the City
without requiring additional off - street parking
spaces.
7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3009 will not under
the circumstances of the case be detrimental to
the health safety, peace, morals, comfort and
general welfare of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the neighborhood or
the general welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan and floor
plan.
2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas for
this restaurant shall be screened from adjoining
properties and from adjoining streets.
3. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of
Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code.
4. That the restaurant employees shall park on site
during all hours of operation.
N
MINUTES
r
m �
INDEX
to
Q e]`
A
G/
m D
•
•
December 9, 1952
Of
5. The service of. beer
complex will have no
parking demand.
I'r R
and wine in the restaurant
significant impact on the
6. The Planning Commission has approved several use
permits for on -sale beer and wine in other
existing restaurant facilities throughout the City
without requiring additional off - street parking
spaces.
7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3009 will not under
the circumstances of the case be detrimental to
the health safety, peace, morals, comfort and
general welfare of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the neighborhood or
the general welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan and floor
plan.
2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas for
this restaurant shall be screened from adjoining
properties and from adjoining streets.
3. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of
Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code.
4. That the restaurant employees shall park on site
during all hours of operation.
N
MINUTES
r
m �
INDEX
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
I ROIL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX
Use Permit No. 3010 (Public Hearing) I
Request to permit the reconstruction of an automobile
service station on property located in the C -1 -H
District. The proposal also requests an exception
permit so as to permit signs that exceed the size and U
number permitted. N
LOCATION: Portion of Lots 80 and 81 of Tract 706,. .
located at 2121 Bristol Street, on the
southeasterly corner of Bristol Street
and Irvine Avenue, adjacent to the
Newport Heights area.
AND
Resubdivision No. 681 (Public Hearing)
Request to establish a single parcel of land for the
• reconstruction of an existing service station where
portions of two lots presently exist.
LOCATION: Portions of Lots 80 and 81 of Tract 706,
located at 2121 Bristol Street, on the
southeasterly corner. of Bristol Street
and Irvine Avenue, adjacent to the
Newport Heights area.
•
ZONE: C -1 -H
APPLICANT: Tait and Associates, Inc., Anaheim
OWNER: Exxon Corporation, Long Beach
ENGINEER: Tait and Associates, Inc., Anaheim
Agenda Items No. 19 and 20 were heard concurrently due
to their relationship.
The public hearing opened in connection with these
items and Mr. Allan Hart, representing the applicant,
appeared before the Commission and requested approval
of these items.
-49-
r
PERMIT
AND
7
� c
r
m
m
'cm
A
G)
m A
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
I ROIL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX
Use Permit No. 3010 (Public Hearing) I
Request to permit the reconstruction of an automobile
service station on property located in the C -1 -H
District. The proposal also requests an exception
permit so as to permit signs that exceed the size and U
number permitted. N
LOCATION: Portion of Lots 80 and 81 of Tract 706,. .
located at 2121 Bristol Street, on the
southeasterly corner of Bristol Street
and Irvine Avenue, adjacent to the
Newport Heights area.
AND
Resubdivision No. 681 (Public Hearing)
Request to establish a single parcel of land for the
• reconstruction of an existing service station where
portions of two lots presently exist.
LOCATION: Portions of Lots 80 and 81 of Tract 706,
located at 2121 Bristol Street, on the
southeasterly corner. of Bristol Street
and Irvine Avenue, adjacent to the
Newport Heights area.
•
ZONE: C -1 -H
APPLICANT: Tait and Associates, Inc., Anaheim
OWNER: Exxon Corporation, Long Beach
ENGINEER: Tait and Associates, Inc., Anaheim
Agenda Items No. 19 and 20 were heard concurrently due
to their relationship.
The public hearing opened in connection with these
items and Mr. Allan Hart, representing the applicant,
appeared before the Commission and requested approval
of these items.
-49-
r
PERMIT
AND
7
X
� c
m � m
c a n m D
.o
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff,
Mr. Hart explained the information which is required by
the Statewide Price Posting Law. He stated that all
prices must be identified to the motoring public and
that the numerals must be of adequate size for the
public to read. He stated that price lettering and
numbering of the proposed signs are larger than the
minimum required by State law.
Commissioner .Goff expressed his concern that the
proposed signs are approximately three times larger
than what the Sign Ordinance allows. Mr. Hart stated
that the proportion of the proposed signs are
consistent with the architectural style of the service
stations. He distributed photographs to the Commission
which depicted the typical signs utilized by the Exxon
service stations.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff,
• Planning Director Hewicker explained that the sign
calculations delineate the entire square footage of the
sign, as opposed to only the area encompassed by the
lettering. Mr. Hart stated that the proposed signs are
a part of the overall identification and image of the
Exxon service stations.
Commissioner Goff suggested an amendment to the
approval of these items which would reflect approval
based upon meeting or more nearly meeting the City's
Sign Ordinance regulations.
Mr. Hart stated that the self -serve and full -serve
signs located on the canopy and the island would have
to be maintained at the size as proposed. He further
stated that the signs located between the canopy
columns and at the end of the canopy would have to also
be maintained because they are an integral part of the
architect of the station. He requested that he be
given the latitude to work with staff in determining
the elimination of any signs. He stated that the
actual sign identification for the station itself only
consists of 36 square feet. He stated that they also
need to maintain the sign which depicts the service of
diesel fuel, in order to inform the motoring public .
that the diesel fuel is available at the station.
•
I I I I I I I I
INDEX
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
7
cm R c>- a
m _ w. City of Newport Beach
I ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX
In. response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff,
Planning Director Hewicker stated that a condition of
approval could be added which would reflect that the
signing shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Director.
Commissioner Goff expressed his concern with the two
identification signs located between the supporting
columns under the canopy. Commissioner McLaughlin
concurred.
Chairman King suggested that the Exxon wording be
eliminated from the signs, but the surface remain
lighted in order to supply lighting to the island.
Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, explained
that the definition of the area of a sign means the
space enclosed by the outer dimensions of the sign, or
• if there is no border, the area shall be the space
enclosed by sets of parallel lines containing the
wording or images composing the sign. Chairman King
stated that if the wording of the sign is eliminated,
it would no longer constitute a sign.
Motion Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3010,
subject to the findings and conditions of approval of
Exhibit "A ", with the exception that the signing shall
not exceed that which is permitted by the City's Sign
Ordinance.
Amendment X Amendment to the motion was made for approval of Use
Permit No. 3010, subject to the findings and conditions
of approval of Exhibit "A ", including the elimination
of the Exxon wording from the two identification signs
located between the supporting columns under the
canopy.
Acceptance X Commissioner Goff accepted the amendment to his motion.
However, he stated that the amendment to the motion
will still allow for almost three times more than what
the Sign Ordinance allows.
• -51-
U
Substitute
Motion
Ayes X
Noes
Absent
December 9,1982
r
mc
m
m y. City of Newport Beach
Mr. Burnham stated that the requirements of State law
will pre -empt the City's Sign Ordinance. He stated
that certain signing is required by State law.
Commissioner Goff stated that some of the proposed
signing which is required by State law is larger than
what is required.
Mr. Burnham suggested that the Commission .could.
condition approval of these items so that the price and
brand designation signing not exceed that which is
required by State law. He stated that the remainder of
the signs could then be required to conform with the
City's Sign Ordinance.
Chairman King stated that because of the site location
and the off -ramp to the proposed expansion of the
freeway, additional signing would be helpful in this
area. Further, he stated that many motorists
experience difficulty in obtaining diesel fuel and that
ease of identification is needed.
Substitute Motion was made for approval of Use Permit
No. 3010, subject to the findings and conditions of
Exhibit "A ", which SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED.
Amended Motion was further amended to reflect approval
AMENDED of Use Permit No. 3010; subject to the findings and
MOTION X conditions of Exhibit "A ", with the condition that the
price and brand designation signing shall not exceed
that which is required by State law, and that the
remainder of the signs shall be required to conform
with the City's Sign Ordinance.
•
Mr. Burnham clarified that the applicant would be
allowed to erect signs up to what is allowed by the
City's Sign Ordinance and the price and brand
designation signs would be over and above what is
allowed by the City's Sign Ordinance.
-52-
MINUTES
INDEX
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
77'
0 0 x 0
m _. City of Newport Beach
INDEX
Noes IXIXIXIX[ I
AMENDED MOTION CARRIED now voted on as follows, which
Absent
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. The Police Department has indicated that they do
not contemplate any problems.
4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3010 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 the general welfare of the City.
5. That the granting of an exception permit for the
area and number of signs proposed is necessary to
protect a substantial property right, will not be
contrary to the purpose of this Chapter as herein
set forth, and will not be materially detrimental
to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare
of persons residing in the neighborhood, or
detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood, or to the
general welfare of the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan, floor
plans and elevations, except as noted below.
2. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project
shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect. At least 15 percent of the site shall
be landscaped with plant materials designed to
provide beautification and screening to the site.
-53-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� z
� r c
q. City of Newport Beach
INDEX
3. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review
of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department,
and the approval of the Planning Department.
4. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance
program which, controls the use of fertilizers and
pesticides.
5. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on
the use of drought- resistant native vegetation,
and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid
surface runoff and overwatering.
6. That a minimum of five parking spaces for each
service bay shall be provided. Said spaces shall
be marked with approved traffic markers or painted
white lines not less than 4 inches wide. The City
Traffic Engineer shall approve the on -site parking
and circulation plan prior to the issuance of
building permits.
• 7. That a 6 -foot high masonry wall shall be
constructed on the rear property line adjacent to
the existing residential structure to the rear of
the subject property.
8. All lighting fixtures shall be located so as to
shield direct rays from adjoining. properties.
Luminaires shall be of a low level, indirect
diffused type and shall not exceed a height of
greater than twenty (20) feet above finished
grade.
9. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision
No. 681 be fulfilled.
10. That all applicable development standards for new
service stations be incorporated into the project
design.
11. That the price and brand designation signing shall
not exceed that which is required by State law,
and that the remainder of the. signs shall be
required to conform with the City's Sign
Ordinance.
-54-
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
December 9, 1982
r c
m
c m JC ni w D G
Of
Beach
I ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX
Motion was made for a roval of Resubdivision No. 681
Ayes IT 1111 PP
Noes subject to the following findings and conditions, which
Absent * MOTION CARRIED: -
FINDINGS:
1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances
of the City, all applicable general or specific
plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied
with the plan of subdivision.
2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no
problems from a planning standpoint.
• 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements will not conflict with any easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision.
CONDITIONS:
1. That a parcel map be filed.
2. That all improvements be constructed as required
by Ordinance and the Public works Department.
3. That a standard subdivision agreement and
accompanying surety be provided in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public
improvements if it is desired to record a parcel
map or obtain a building permit ,prior to
completion of the public improvements.
• I I I I I I I -55-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
c m > >c Giro
City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX
4. That landscape plans shall be subject to review
and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Department and Public Works Department.
5. That the deteriorated sidewalk be reconstructed
along the Bristol Street frontage between the
easterly driveway and the easterly property line
under an encroachment permit issued by the
California Department of Transportation.
6. That a curb. wall be provided adjacent to the
existing planter on Irvine Avenue to eliminate
sloughing of soil onto the adjacent sidewalk; and
that a curb drain be constructed at the
southwesterly corner of the existing concrete
block wall adjacent to Irvine Avenue to provide
. drainage.
7. That a grading permit be issued for replacement of
existing underground gas storage tanks.
•
* x
-56-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
R
m m
m m 0 y. City of Newport Beach
ROLLCALLI 111 1111 INDEX
Amendment No. 581 (Public Hearing)
Request to consider an amendment to a portion of
Districting Map No. 8 so as to reclassify property from
the M -1 District to the C -1 District, and the
acceptance of an environmental document.
LOCATION: Lot No. 7, Block 331, Lancaster's
Addition, located at 413 30th Street, on
the northerly side of 30th Street
between Newport Boulevard and Villa Way,
in Cannery Village.
AND
Use Permit No. 3011 (Public Hearing)
Request to construct a three story, commercial -
residential condominium structure in the C -1 District
which exceeds the basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot
• Height Limitation District. The proposal also includes
a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the
use of a substandard parking aisle width with wider
than standard parking spaces.
AND
Resubdivision No. 737 (Public Hearing)
Request to establish a single parcel of land for
residential - commercial condominium purposes where two
lots presently exist.
LOCATION: Lots No. 6 and 7, Block 331, Lancaster's
Addition, located at 411 and 413 30th
Street on the northerly side of 30th
Street between Newport Boulevard and
Villa Way, in Cannery Village.
ZONE: M -1
APPLICANT: Alejandro Bulajich and N.V. Txomin,
Balboa Island
OWNER: Same as applicants
• ENGINEER: Brion S. Jeannette and Associates,
Newport Beach
-57-
Items No.
21, 22
and 23
ALL
APPROVED
CONDI-
TIONALLY
COMMISSIONERS
� r �
m � m
c m 7� G1 m D
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
Agenda Items No. 21, 22 and 23 were heard, concurrently
due to their relationship.
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. Brion Jeannette, architect for the project,
appeared before the Commission. Mr. Jeannette
submitted two additional signatures to the petition
which had been submitted earlier of persons in favor of
the proposed project. He then referred to the plans
relating to this item and described the various aspects
of the proposed commercial- residential condominium
project in Cannery Village.
Mr. Jeannette stated that the project incorporates a
substantial amount of open space in the form of second
and third level decks and increased front building
setbacks on the second and third levels, in
consideration of exceeding the basic height limit. He
stated that this also allows for sideline views towards
• the bay. He stated that the project exceeds the height
limit by approximately two feet on the average. He
stated that the greenhouse space was primarily designed
for the manager to gain access to the roof and solar
panels.
In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr.
Jeannette stated that the height to the top of the
greenhouse would be 35 feet, the roof average of the
greenhouse would be 32 feet. He stated that even the
35 foot height does not exceed the height limits under
the use permit process.
Mr. Jeannette addressed the buildable area of the site.
He stated that project is at 1.27 times the buildable
area of the site which is below the 1.5 buildable area
of the C -R District for combined commercial- residential
developments. He stated that they have obtained
approximately 20 signatures from persons immediately
adjacent to the site which are in favor of the project.
In response to .a question posed by Commissioner
Winburn, Mr. Jeannette stated that it would be possible
to design the building at a height of 26 feet, however,
he stated that.the theory of giving view corridors in
exchange for the extra height.should be tested.
• IIIIIIII ..-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
m m y- City of Newport Beach
INDEX
In response to a question posed by Chairman King,
Planning Director Hewicker stated that the 2,000 square
foot . figure would be utilized for the commercial net
floor area of the project.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff,
Mr. Jeannette stated that the primary purpose of the
greenhouse is to gain access to the roof. He stated
that it also allows more light for the interior of the
building. Commissioner Goff asked if a skylight could
achieve the same purpose. Mr. Jeannette stated that
this would be possible.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Balalis, Mr. Russell Fluter, developer of a commercial -
residential building located at 405 30th Street, stated
that the buildable area of his project was at 1.23 or
• 1.24 times the buildable area.
Commissioner Goff referred to the 20 -unit motel in
Cannery Village which was recently approved by the
Planning Commission at one times the buildable area.
He stated that the project was approved at one times
the buildable area because of a concern with the width
of the alley and exceeding the height limit.
Planning Director Hewicker stated that the proposed
project is an attractive building and has been designed
to try and fit within the requirements the City has set
forth in terms of the ability to go over the height
limitations, square footage and floor area ratios
within the zoning districts. He stated that it also
shows the benefits of combining two parcels which
adjoin each other. However, he stated that he does
not believe that the Cannery Village area can sustain
the intensity of development of this type on ,every
parcel in Cannery Village.,
Commissioner McLaughlin stated that her motion to
approve the use permit would be subject to restricting
the project to one times the buildable area of the
• site.
-59-
MISSIONERS MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� r c
a
S - a
m
ROLL CALL I I I I III[ I INDEX
Motion
Ayes
Noes
Absent
11
Motion
Ayes
Noes
Absent
VM
AMENDMENT NO. 581
Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 581, subject
to the following findings, which MOTION CARRIED:
FINDINGS:
1. That the requested zoning amendment is consistent
with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
the Adopted Local Coastal Plan.
2. That the requested zoning amendment is a logical
extension of the existing C -1 District located
westerly of the subject property.
3. That the proposed zone change will enable the
combining of two substandard lots into a single
building site for commercial- residential
development.
USE PERMIT NO. 3011
X Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3011, subject [ I
X X to the following findings and conditions, including
X Condition No. 2 as recommended by staff for the subject
property not to exceed a limitation of .1.0 times the
buildable area, which MOTION CARRIED:
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land
Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted
Local Coastal Plan and is compatible with
surrounding land uses.
2. The project will not have any significant
environmental impact..
3. That the reduced parking aisle width 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
W
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� r c
w � m
S c m w a
Q IG J 7C GJ
of Newport Beach
ROLLCALLI 111 1111 1 INDEX
in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be
detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the
general welfare of the City and further that
the proposed modification is consistent with
the legislative intent of Title 20 of this
Code inasmuch as the proposed parking spaces
will be wider than standard spaces.
4. The increased building height will result in more
public visual open space than is required by the
basic height limit inasmuch as the project
includes large second and third level decks for
outdoor living area purposes.
5. The increased building height will result in more
desirable architectural treatment of the building
and a stronger and.more appealing visual character
of the area than is required by the basic height
• limit.
6. The increased building height will not result in
undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being
created between the structure and existing
developments or public spaces.
7. The structure will have no more floor area than
could have been achieved without the use permit
for the building height.
8. Adequate off - street parking. and related vehicular
circulation are being provided in conjunction with
the proposed development.
9. That the design of the proposed improvements will
not conflict with any easements, acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed development.
10. The approval of Use Permit No. 3011 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
• I III I I I I' neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
-61-
F- 1
LJ
0
December 9, 1982
r c
m � m
m w. City of Newport Beach
C 3 6 � p m
m
CONDITIONS:
1. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan, floor
plans, and elevations, except as noted below.
2. That as long as the property is developed with a
structure which exceeds the basic height limit,
the applicant shall record a covenant, of which
the form and content is acceptable to the City
Attorney, binding the applicant and its successors
in interest in perpetuity, to not exceed a
limitation of 1.0 times the buildable area on the
subject property. This is in consideration of
approval of the use permit to exceed the height
limit.
3. That all signs shall be in conformance with the
provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code.
4. The following disclosure statement of the City of
Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne
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 recorded against any
undeveloped site.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns,
herein, acknowledge that:
a.) The John Wayne Airport may not be able
to provide adequate air service for business
establishments which rely on such service;
b.) When an alternate air facility is
available, a complete phase out of jet
service may occur at the John Wayne Airport;
C.) The City of Newport Beach will continue
to oppose additional commercial area service
expansions at the John Wayne Airport;
-62-
MINUTES
INDEX
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
$ F
� r c
m � m
y. City of Newport Beach
INDEX
d.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and
assigns, will not .actively oppose any action
taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase
out or . limit jet air service at the John
Wayne Airport.
5. Prior to issuance of any building permits
authorized by the approval of this use permit,, the
applicant shall deposit with the City Finance
Director the sum proportional to the percentage
of future additional traffic related to the
project in the subject area, to be used for the
construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the
southerly side of west Coast Highway in the West
Newport Area.
6. That prior to the occupancy of any residential
• unit a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by
the City at the applicant's expense shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director that the noise impact from
30th Street and Newport Boulevard on the project
does not exceed 65 db CNEL for outside living
areas and the requirements of law for interior
spaces.
7. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment
shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to
achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the
property lines.
8. That any mechanical equipment or trash containers
shall be screened from view from 30th Street and
adjoining properties.
9. That all access to the buildings be approved by
the Fire Department.
10. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program
for the sorting of recyclable material form other
solid wastes shall be developed and approved by
the Planning Department.
•
-63-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982 .
m m
m City of Newport Beach
INDEX
11. Upon completion of construction, the applicant
shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all
paved parking areas and drives.
12. The project shall be designed to conform to Title
24, Paragraph 6, Division T -20, Chapter 2,
Sub- chapter 4 of the California Administrative
Code dealing with energy requirements.
13. The project shall investigate the use of
alternative energy sources (i.e. solar) and to the
maximum extent economically feasible incorporate
the use of said in project designs.
14. Prior to occupancy of the structure, the
applicants shall provide written verification from
Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 that
adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the
project.
I I I I ( 15. Final design of the project shall provide for the
incorporation of water - saving devices for project
lavatories and other water -using facilities.
16. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 737 shall
be fulfilled.
17. That the proposed two car garage and two
additional parking spaces shall be reserved for
the proposed residential units on the site.
RESUBDIVISION NO. 737
Motion X Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 737.,
Ayes N X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, which
Noes X MOTION CARRIED:
Absent
FINDINGS:
1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances
of the City, all applicable general or specific
plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied
with the plan of subdivision.
• 2. That` the proposed resubdivision presents no
problems from a planning standpoint.
I,
n x
r c
m ' C9
c m m D
a . m
MINUTES
December 9,1982
of Newport Beach
INDEX
3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements will not conflict with any easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision.
CONDITIONS:
1. That a parcel map be filed.
2. That all improvements be constructed as required
by Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
3. That a standard subdivision agreement and
accompanying surety be provided in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public
improvements if it is desired to record a parcel
map or obtain a building permit prior to
. completion of public improvements.
4. That the commercial and the residential units have
separate water service and sewer lateral
connections to the public water and sewer systems
unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Department.
5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation
and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to
further review by the Traffic Engineer.
6. That landscape plans shall be subject to review
and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Department and Public Works Department.
7. That the existing drive apron be removed and
replaced with curb and sidewalk and that the
deteriorated sidewalk be reconstructed along the
30th Street frontage under an encroachment permit
issued by the Public Works Department.
8. That any non - standard improvement, to be
constructed within the public right -of -way, be,
approved by the Public Works Department, and that
a license, agreement be executed by the owner to
provide maintenance of these improvements.
-65-
December 9,1982
� 70=i City of Newport Beach
Request to permit the establishment of a take -out food
establishment including the sale of shaved ice products
in the C -1 District, and to waive all of the required
off - street parking spaces.
LOCATION: Lot 12, Block 14, Balboa Island Tract,
located at 322 Marine Avenue, on the
easterly side of Marine Avenue between
Balboa Avenue and the Balboa Island
Channel, on Balboa Island.
ZONE: C -1
APPLICANT: Marcia Bently, Studio City
OWNERS: Paula Benabou and Howard G. Tucker,
Balboa Island
• Staff advised the Commission that the applicant for
Item No. 24 - Use Permit No. 3012, has requested that
this item he continued to the Planning Commission
Meeting of January 6, 1983.
Motion X Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning
All Ayes X X X X X X * Commission Meeting of January 6, 1983, which MOTION
CARRIED.
* * *
Street Name Change (Public Hearing)
Request to change the name of 22nd Street to Santiago
Drive, between Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue.
REQUEST MADE BY: Roger Luby, Newport Beach
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Ms. Carol Blakeslee, .representing Mr. Roger Luby,
appeared before the Commission and requested approval
of the street name change. Ms. Blakeslee referred to
Ms. June Farwell's negative response to the street name
• change because they are operating a business out of
their home. Ms. Blakeslee further stated that she has
:1_
MINUTES
INDEX
PERMIT
Continued
to January
6, 1983'
NAME
CHANGE
December 9, 1982
3 �
� r c
w. City of Newport Beach
not had the opportunity to read the CC &R's for the
residential neighborhood to determine the impacts and
perimeters of operating a business out of a residence.
Ms. Blakeslee stated that the requested street name
change from 22nd Street to Santiago Drive would be a
continuation of an existing street name.
Planning Director Hewicker explained the City's policy
for home occupation within residential districts which
are primarily limited to mail order, telephone type
businesses, and those businesses which do not encourage
additional traffic and where there are no outside
employees.
Planning Director Hewicker stated that a letter has
been received from Mr. Francis Glockner, resident of
2408 E. 22nd Street, stating that he is now opposed to
the street name change. He had originally signed the
• petition in favor of the street name change.
Commissioner Winburn noted that a letter had been
received from Mr. Kermit'Dorius, resident of 2420 22nd
Street, stating his support for the proposed street
name change.
Planning Director Hewicker explained the procedures
utilized by the City for a street name change. He
stated that the existing street name and the new street
name would be displayed on the existing ,sign post for
approximately one year. He stated that persons who
have business cards and stationary may be
inconvenienced by the street name change. He stated
that the telephone directories would also have to be
updated.
Chairman King stated that the County Assessor's Office,,
gas and electric companies would also have to be
notified of a street name change.
Mr. Chaff
appeared
change.
numerous
such as
• _ agencies
les Cotton, resident of 2424 22nd Street,
in opposition to the proposed street name
He expressed. his concern that there will be
costs, involved with the street name change,
new street signs, notification of various
and inconvenience. He stated that Mr. Luby
-67-
MINUTES
INDEX
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
� r �
City of Newport Beach
INDEX
has lived on the street less than one year, while many
of the residents who are opposed to the change have
lived on the street much longer. He stated that 22nd
Street follows in a logical sequence from 15th Street
in Newport Heights. He further stated that from Irvine
Avenue there is no street crossover or continuation of
street names from Dover Shores.
Commissioner Goff asked staff for the actual costs
involved to the City for the street name change.
Planning Director Hewicker stated that the costs
involved would be for the fabrication and installation
of the street signs, and the Water Department and
Planning Department would have to make the necessary
changes. He estimated that the cost would run between
$500.00 to $1,000.00 to accomplish.
• I I I I I In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff,
Mr. Cotton stated that he would personally incur costs
for new stationary and the change to the address on his
mailbox.
Mr. Jeff Farwell, resident of 2426 22nd Street since
1964, appeared in opposition to the proposed street
name change. Mr. Farwell stated that since 1964 he has
known of only two instances of confusion relating to
22nd Street, none of which were emergency situations.
He also stated that there will be further costs
incurred by the Rapid Transit District (RTD) with the
proposed street name change.
Mrs. Sherry Hilberger, resident of 2422 22nd Street for
the past 10 years, appeared in opposition to the
proposed street name change. She stated the emergency
vehicles have never had a problem locating the area.
She stated that the construction crew which has worked
on the Lubys' residence were not local people and
therefore were not familiar with the area. She stated
that it is her belief that the Lubys are requesting the
change because. they want to live on a "name" rather
than a "number" street.
•
-68-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
3 7
� m m
Q m 3 X G7 m
D
m �. City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX '
Ms. Blakeslee stated that the opposition appears to be
concerned with the labor force which has worked on the
renovation of the Luby residence. She stated that the
street name change is being requested because of
emergencies involving burglaries, fire and health. She
stated that she has personally spoke with Chief Gross
of the Police Department and he has stated that the
street name change would help his department
enormously. She further stated that the Fire
Department has also indicated that they are in
agreement with the said street name change.
Ms. Blakeslee stated that Mr. Luby has resided on the
property since 1978, except for the eleven months which
were needed to complete the construction and renovation
of his 7,000 square foot residence. She stated that
the work force is currently completing its
construction.
• Mr. Jim Barclay, resident of 2400 22nd Street since
1963, appeared in opposition to the proposed street
name change. Mr. Barclay stated that the three
occasions which he has called the Police Department,
there has never been any confusion as to where the
property was located. He stated that it would be more
confusing to change half of 22nd Street to Santiago
Drive. He further stated that the street name change
would cause him considerable expense and hardship.
E
Mr. Jack Greive, resident of 2431 22nd ,Street for 18
years, appeared in opposition to the proposed street
name change. He stated that for many years he has told
people that he lives on 22nd Street between Irvine and
Tustin Avenues, and not on 22nd Street on the
Peninsula. He stated that now he will have to tell
people that he lives on Santiago Drive between Irvine
and Tustin Avenues, and not on Santiago Drive on the
Bluffs. He stated that changing the name for one block
of 22nd Street does not make economic sense.
Commissioner Goff asked if staff if they were aware of
any situation where an emergency vehicle has responded
to the wrong 22nd Street. Planning Director Hewicker
stated that he.was not aware of any situation such as.
that.
S
:TL
m � m
a
J J+ m+ N J
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
ion
Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
In response to a question posed by Chairman King,
Planning Director Hewicker stated that if there were to
be a street name change, Santiago Drive would be the
logical choice, in that it is located across Irvine
Avenue from 22nd Street.
Mr. Cotton, who spoke earlier; stated that in checking
with the post.office, all addresses on 22nd Street on
the Peninsula.contain three digits, while all addresses
on 22nd Street between Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue,
contain four digits.
Mrs. Hilberger, who spoke earlier, reiterated her
opposition to the proposed street name change.
IIIl Motion was made for denial of the proposed street name
X X X * change from 22nd Street to Santiago Drive, which MOTION
CARRIED.
* * *
Planning Director Hewicker presented background
information on this item.
Motion was made to continue. this item to a Study
Y
X X X * Session on January 6, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED.
to a
* * *
on j
T—.1
0 11111111 1 -70-
COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
m � w
m w.
City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Report from the Planning Director regarding the request
Item #27
of Advanced Health Systems, Inc., to temporarily locate
a mobile kitchen facility on the Raleigh Hills Hospital
property (Discussion)
LOCATION: A portion of Lot 148, Tract No. 1218,
located at. 1501 16th Street, on the
southerly side of 16th Street,. westerly
RALEIGH
of Dover Drive.
HILLS
-
-
HOSPITAL
ZONE: - A -P -H
The Planning Commission received a report relating to
this item from Planning Director Hewicker.
Chairman King asked if the possible sale of Raleigh
Hills Hospital would affect the proposed request.
RECEIVED
Planning Director Hewicker stated that staff had not
REPORT
had the opportunity to speak with the Project Manager,
but that it should not affect the request.
FROM
proposed
PLANNING
-
DIRECTOR
The following conditions of approval were recommended
by the Planning Department for the temporary facility
at Raleigh Hills Hospital:
CONDITIONS:
1. That all necessary building permits be obtained
prior to installing the mobile kitchen on the
subject property.
2. That the mobile kitchen shall be removed and the
site restored within 90 days of. installation.
Planning Director Hewicker stated that this item
requires no action from the Planning Commission.
0 11111111 -71-
MINUTES
December 9, 1982
m m iF City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX
General Plan Amendment (Discussion)
Request of Bernard E. Schneider, representing Four
Seasons Hotels, Ltd., that the Planning Commission
reconsider its action of November 18, 1982.
Item #28
Commissioner Balalis stated that he has reviewed the REQUESTS
previous Planning Commission minutes and staff report FOR
relating to this item. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City GENERAL
Attorney, stated that Commissioner Balalis would PLAN
therefore be entitled to participate and vote on this AMENDMENTS
item.
In response to a questions posed by Commissioner
McLaughlin and Commissioner Goff, Planning Director
Hewicker explained the process by which a General Plan
amendment request can be initiated.
Commissioner McLaughlin expressed her concern that the
Planning Commission recommended at the last meeting
that the requests for General Plan amendment be
deferred to future hearing sessions, based on Planning
Department work load and project priorities.
Planning Director Hewicker explained the change to City
Council Policy Q -1 which allows the consideration of
General Plan amendments three times a year, with the
individual General Plan amendments to be considered at
such time as the necessary environmental documentation
has been completed. Therefore, he stated that the work
load will be spread out among the individual projects.
Commissioner Balalis stated that in reviewing the
Planning Commission minutes of November 18, 1982, he
felt as though the requests for General Plan amendment
had failed because the motion included a priority list
for the projects.
Motion X Motion was made to reconsider the Planning Commission
Ayes X X X action of November '18, 1982, relating to the requests
Noes X X
Abstain for General Plan amendment, which MOTION CARRIED.
.
0 n -72-
TO CITY
COUNCIL
THAT
REQUESTS
BE
INITIATED
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL I 11 I Jill I INDEX I
Commissioner Balalis stated that initiating a General
Plan amendment does not constitute approval of the
proposed project. He stated that it gives the
applicant, the public and the City the opportunity to
evaluate the.pros and cons of a certain project.
Commissioner Balalis suggested that by initiating these
requests for a General Plan amendment, the applicant
could supply the funds for current information to the
traffic model,, if needed.
Motion X Motion was made to recommend to the City Council that
all of the requests for General Plan amendment be
initiated, and that staff be directed to set the
amendment for public hearing before the Planning
Commission following preparation of any necessary
environmental documentation.
•
Chairman King stated that he would support the motion,
for the same reasons as he had stated at the November
18, 1982, Planning Commission Meeting.
In response to a .question posed by Commissioner
McLaughlin, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained how
the traffic model could be updated. He requested that
he have the opportunity to report back to the Planning
Commission after determining if updating the traffic
model would be meaningful in considering the General
Plan amendment requests.
Commissioner Goff suggested that the current work load
of the Planning Department. have priority over these
General Plan amendment requests. Planning. Director
Hewicker concurred.
Ayes 1Xf 11111i Motion by Commissioner Balalis recommending initiation
Abstain of the requests for General Plan amendment, was now
Absent voted on, which MOTION CARRIED.
• IIIIIIII
X
c
W
C
a m
d
7c
0
W
m D
7 >
W m
December 9, 1982
of Newport Beach
MINUTES
ROLL CALL I 11 I Jill I INDEX I
Commissioner Balalis stated that initiating a General
Plan amendment does not constitute approval of the
proposed project. He stated that it gives the
applicant, the public and the City the opportunity to
evaluate the.pros and cons of a certain project.
Commissioner Balalis suggested that by initiating these
requests for a General Plan amendment, the applicant
could supply the funds for current information to the
traffic model,, if needed.
Motion X Motion was made to recommend to the City Council that
all of the requests for General Plan amendment be
initiated, and that staff be directed to set the
amendment for public hearing before the Planning
Commission following preparation of any necessary
environmental documentation.
•
Chairman King stated that he would support the motion,
for the same reasons as he had stated at the November
18, 1982, Planning Commission Meeting.
In response to a .question posed by Commissioner
McLaughlin, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained how
the traffic model could be updated. He requested that
he have the opportunity to report back to the Planning
Commission after determining if updating the traffic
model would be meaningful in considering the General
Plan amendment requests.
Commissioner Goff suggested that the current work load
of the Planning Department. have priority over these
General Plan amendment requests. Planning. Director
Hewicker concurred.
Ayes 1Xf 11111i Motion by Commissioner Balalis recommending initiation
Abstain of the requests for General Plan amendment, was now
Absent voted on, which MOTION CARRIED.
• IIIIIIII
I
3
x
� r
c
>
�
CJ
itv of
December 9, 1982
t Beach
There being no further business, the Planning
Commission adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
Dave Goff, Secretary
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
• IIIIIIII -74- -
MINUTES
INDEX