Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/1980COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:30 p.m. w Date: December 18, 1980 City of Newport Beach L INDEX XIAKIXIAII Present. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney! STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administra Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Patricia Temple, Senior Planner Donald Webb, Assistant City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary Initiate proposed amendments to the Land Use jItem #1 and Residential,Growth. Elements >of the Newport Beach; General Plan: GENERAL PLAN INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beagh ENO 81- Continued to Januar -1- 8, 1981. i APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES APPROVAL OF THE M N _UT ES Motion X Motion was made to approve the minutes of the Ayes X X X X X Regular Planning Commission Meeting of.December 4, Abstain X 1980 as written, which MOTION CARRIED. Staff advised that the applicant for -Item Nos. 6 and 7, Use Permit No. 1969 and Resubdivision No. 672, has requested that this item be con- tinued to January 8, 1981. Motion X Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 1969 All Ayes X X X X Resubdivision No. 672 to the meeting of land January 8, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. Initiate proposed amendments to the Land Use jItem #1 and Residential,Growth. Elements >of the Newport Beach; General Plan: GENERAL PLAN INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beagh ENO 81- Continued to Januar -1- 8, 1981. i 7 � N December 18, 1980 `_n Beach MINUTES INDEX Commissioner Bal.alis asked staff to explain the procedure for General Plan amendment requests. Planning Director Hew.icker explained the City Council policy regarding General Plan amendment requests. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not be participating in this item, due to a ;possible conflict of interest. The discussion opened in connection with this request and Barbara Humphries, the.agent for the applicant, Robert Thomas Associates, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Humphries stated that the Plymouth Congregational Church facility is presently occupying the site located at 3262 Broa Street and that it is the intention of Mr. Thomas to restore the building with its present archi- tecture and to convert the interior for use as an architectural office. She urged the Commission to visit the site before making their decision. Ms. Humphries referred to the letter of:opposi- • tion received from Diana Springer. She stated that.she would like to read the lettersof oppo- sition that were referred to in Ms. Springers' letter and that they would like to havei the op- portunity to.present their proposal to ithese people. She also stated that she had canvassed the immediate area herself and found there to be almost no resistance to the proposal. She added that this proposal will help to alleviate the weekend parking problems experienced in the neigh borhood from the existing church use. Commissioner Thomas asked Ms. Humphrieswhen the church was built. Ms: Humphries. stated that the building is 39 years old and that in one more year they may be able to obtain low interest historical financing. Commissioner Thomas stated that the building may already be eligible for suc financing, if the building is found to have uniqu architectural integrity. Commissioner Thomas asked if Mr. Thomas would be willing to dedicate an architectural eajsement which would essentially guarantee that the build - ing remain as is, architecturally. Ms. Humphries • stated that this is a possibility to be con - sidered. -2- December 18, 1980 MINUTES 51 s CL 1 S Citv of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Beek asked Ms. Humphries if the building is presently being utilized as a church. Ms. Humphries stated that this was correct and stated that:Mr. Lundval, representing the church, would like to make a presentation. i. Mr.. John Lundval; representing the churich, ap- peared before the Commission. Mr. Lundval stated that the congregation is wanting to sell the church because it is inadequate for church growth due to the lack of Sunday school facilities, fellowship halls and parking problems. He stated that they support the intentions of the developer He also stated that the property is in escrow with Mr. Thomas, but that escrow will not close until there has been ample „encouragement by the City that his proposal is acceptable. Chairman Haidinger asked.how many:squarre feet of office space is being proposed. Mr. Lundval stated that there will be approximately 4,500 to . 5,000 square feet of. useable space. Commissioner Thomas suggested that the.irchitec- tural easement option be explored further before the Council takes action. Planning Director Hewicker stated that -the deter= mination before the Commission is to either set the General Plan amendment for a public hearing, or to recommend to the City Council, that the General Plan'amendment is unwarranted.. Ms. Pat Strang., representing the Newport Heights Community. Association, appeared before the Com- mission. Ms. Strang stated that as a community, they are opposed to the intrusion of commercial type activities into the residential.neighborhood She stated that in view of the suggestion propose by Commissioner Thomas, they would, however, be willing to work with the applicant on these groun Commissioner Thomas stated that the architectural easement would guarantee that the facade would be maintained in perpetuity and could not;be con - verted.to a higher use at a later date; Commissioner Allen suggested that it would be • appropriate for Ms. Humphries and the developer -3- December 18, 1980 MINUTES n F N City of Newport Beach RWLCALLI III INNDEX Motion Ayes Abstain Noes to meet with Ms. Strang and the people of the area before a decision is made. Commissioner Thomas stated that this can be, accomplished be- tween.now and the time of the public hearing. He stated that in this way, there would be no undue delays for the parties involved.; Chairman Haidinger stated that a public hearing involves making public notices and environmental documen- tations which the applicant may not want to do at this time. Motion was made to continue General Plan Amendmen No..81 -1 to the meeting of January 8, 1981, which MOT "ION CARRIED. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that in the interi the applicant should be considering.the suggestio of the architectural easement. Request to consider the revocation of Use Permit • No. 1866 that permitted a restaurant facility with on -sale beer and wine in an existing. building in the C -1 District. This public hearing is to determine whether or not said use permit should be revoked for failure to comply with certain required conditions of approval. LOCATION: Lot 13, Tract No. 1210, located at 500 West Coast Highway,jon the northerly side of West Coast Highway, across from Bayshores. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Carina Di Matteo INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach OWNER: Bob Taube, Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker stated that;the restau rant is closed and the business is forltsale. He stated t.hat the applicant has attempted to correc some of the deficiencies in the use permit which were originally noted. Some of the corrections -4- Item #2 USE PERMI tion COMMISSIONERS1 December 18, 1980 MINUTES ii, w tWN Of INDEX havecreated additional problems. For 'example, the screening for the trash blocks the access for two of the required parking spaces. He suggested that the Commission revoke the use permit and stated that the new operator can apply for a new use permit. The continued public hearing opened inconnection with this item and the applicant, Carina Di Matteo, appeared before the'Commission..Ms: Di Matteo stated that the business will continue as a restaurant, but has been sold and is, currently in escrow. Planning Director Hewicker asked the applicant if the new owner had been made aware of the deficien cies in the use permit. Ms. D.i Matteo stated that they have been informed of this, but that the sale is contingent on the use permit not being revoked. She explained to the Commission the problems that she has encountered in correcting the deficiencies. • Chairman Haidinger asked if there would be any way to ensure that the prosp�ectivebuyer under- stands the problems of the use permit.! Planning Director Hewicker stated that this item could be continued to the next .meeting in - order :to contact the prospective buyer and expl.ain the problems. Commissioner Balalis stated that the We of the restaurant will be lost if the use permit were to be revoked. He stated that some of the condition: may hot.be realistic, due to the fact that the owner of the subject property intends to demolish the existing structure in 1983. Ms. Di Matteo explained to the Commission the problems she has faced with the parking conditions. Commissioner Balalis requested the staff to ex -. plain to Ms. Di Matteo the conditions as found in the staff report, which have not been complied with as yet. Commissioner Beek suggested that the prospective buyer be on record as being notified of the revo- cation.proceedings. Commissioner Thomas concurr.e( that the staff should contact the prospective buyer before the close of escrow as to the existing problems. -5- CUMM1551UNtKJ December 18,. 1980 MINUTES IR y City of Newport Beach RW CALL INDEX Motion X Motion was made to continue this item, Revocation All Ayes X X X.X X of Use Permit No. 1866, to January 8, 1;981, in order to give the applicant additionalt.ime to comply with the required conditions of approval, and to meet with City staff and the new, owner to discuss the revocation proceedings, which MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Beek stated that if this item can not be resolved satisfactorily in the interim, it should be scheduled for the next study ;session. 0 4P Request to permit the expansion of.an existing single family dwelling in the R -1 District that already exceeds the maximum allowable building area of 1.5 times the buildable area. iA modi- fication of the Zoning Code is :also requested inasmuch as two off street parking spaces are provided where three parking spaces are required. LOCATION -: A portion of 673, located the easterly between East Boulevard in ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT OWNER: Lot 52, Block A, Tract at 328 Hazel Drive, on side of HazeliDrive Coast Highway and Ocean Corona del Mar;. Charles E. Prichard; Corona. del Mar ..Same as applicant Planning Director Hewicker noted that a letter of opposition had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Cooper of 332 Hazel Drive. Chairman Haidinger noted that the Commission had receiveda letter dated December 15, 1980, from the applicant's attorney, Milan Dostal. The public hearing opened i:n connection with this item and Mr. Milan Dostal the applicant's attor- ney, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Dostal stated that they are requesting this variance to be granted because of the hardship involved on Item #3 VARIANCE N0. 1081 DENIED 4MISSiONERS .December 18, 1980 MINUTES �i a City of Newport Beach this particular project. Mr..Dostal stated that the.1.5 times buildable area was established to maintain a lower population density and to eliminate the increase of traffic impact to an area. He pointed out that there will be no addi- tional parking problems, traffic problems, or population density increases due to this requeste variance. Mr. Dostal stated that the applicants were able to meet with Mr. and Mrs. Cooper since the last meeting, to explain the proposed plans. He stated that the Tillner's were offered.the same invitation, but they declined. Mr. Dostal re_ ferred to his letter dated December 15b 1980 and stated that they are quite willing to insert addi tional windows that would be permissable under the State Energy Conservation Act. Mr.-Dostal stated that the project was'started before obtaining a building permit, which was a mistake in judgement. However, he- stated that • it was done in an effort to protect the property from the neighboes fires and barbecues.. He state that the applicant's house acted as a chimney to funnel the smoke and ash from the fires, which caused the hardship. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, asked Mr. Dostal if they would agree to a stipulation that the minutes dated November 20, 1980, at- tached to the staff report are accurate, so that the Commission members that were absent at that meeting could cast their votes this evening on this matter. Mr. Dostal stated that they had found the minutes to be quite complete and that this would be agreeable. Mr. Dostal referred to page number 5 of said minutes, the last paragraph and questioned as to whether the balcolny area referred to_was the lower level balcony or the upper level balcony. Mr. Norman Tillner of 324 Hazel Drive,' appeared before the Commission in opposition to this re- quest. Mr. Tillner then submitted to Ithe Commis- sion a letter dated December 18, 1980,1which outlined his points of opposition. He, stated IIIIIIiI INDEX COMMISSIONERS1 December 18, 1980 cri n W W City of . Newport Beach MINUTES that the other homes in the neighborhoold have stayed within the area limits of the Building Code and that the adjacent neighbors shouldnot be forced to suffer a loss of value to their proper- ties as a result of the applic;ant's indiscretion. Mr. Tillner stated that the applicant h :ad never mentioned a thi.ng to.him about the smoke. He stated that he does not burn trash, and his best guess would be that they have had only ;seven or eight cookouts. He stated that when houses are built so close together, some smoke from neighbor' cookouts would be inevitable. Mr. Tillner stated that this case is aserious matter involving property rights and buiilding re- gulations. He stated that it is the obligation of the elected and appointed City officials to enforce the existing building restrictions. He stated that granting a variance under. these .ci;rcumstances after the applicant has knowingly goneahead with construction, in defiance of numerous orders not to, encourages violations and a precedent will • have been set. Mr. Tillner concluded by urging the Commission to deny Variance No. 1091. He added that approval of this variance woluld be de- trimental to his property. n Commissioner Beek asked staff if therehas been a violation to the Building Code. Planning Directo Hewic.ker stated that this case is in violation of the Zoning Code in that there has been ;construc- tion .without obtaining a building permit. Commissioner Beek referred to Mr. Dostal's letter, and asked staff what the maximum allowable amount of window area that could be utilized under the State Energy Conservation Act would be Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Sta% Energy laws would.not allow the area of window openings in a room to exceed 16 percent of the total floor area.of said room under normal conditions (single - pane construction.), which is considerably less thar what the applicant had proposed to the Cooper's. Mrs:Elizab.eth Cooper of 332 Hazel Drive,. appeared before the Commission in opposition to this request. n INDEX 1MISSIONERS December 18, 1980 x w CLn City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Mrs. Cooper stated that this proposal is very damaging to her property rights, the value of her property and the enjoyment of her property. Mr. Pri- chard, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Prichard stated that the pro- posal that was made.to the Cooper's - inblu.ded a convenant so as not to drape the windows. He stated that he had also agreed to trimjthe trees between the two homes to ensure adequate light. He referred to his letter to the Cooper`s, dated December 11, 1980, and stated that he appreciated the opportunity to discuss with them, his pro - posal Mr. Prichard stated that of the eight impacted houses, six of the houses signed the petition, which was presented to the Commission at the last meeting. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission deny Variance N.o. 1081 on the basis of the following findings: • FINDINGS: 1. That there are no exceptional or.extraordinar. circumstances applying to the land;, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do notapply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district which justifies the further increase of the building area of a: structure which presently exceeds the maximuln.allowable building area of the parcel. 2. That the granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation andenjoyment of substantial property rights of Ithe applicant, since the existing structure is .already larger 'than all of the other dwelling units on similar - sized property inithe im= mediate vicinity. I 3. That the granting of such applicatNon, will under the circumstances of the par icular case, materially affect adroegsely he health or safety of persons residin or w rkingin • the neighborhood of the property of the appli cant and will under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious toproperty or improvements in the neighborhood. -9- x December 18, 1980 MINUTES of Newport Beach Commissioner Beek- stated that he will :.Ho.te to deny this request, but that he appreciated the appli- cant's sincere effort and the attitude that has been :shown in presenting the proposal. Chairman Haid,inger complimented the applicant a d the appli cant's attorney on their presentation, but stated that he would be voting to deny the request. All Ayes XK X X X X Motion to deny Variance No. 1081, was row voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 9: CO p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Request to waive the requirement of a parcel map" for the combining of lots in conjunction with the expansion of an existing marine supply store on the property. • LOCATION: Lots.16, 1.7, 18, 19, 20 anc 21, Block 227, Section A, located at 2821 -2825 Newport Boulevar 'between .29th Street and 30th Stree in -Central Newport. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Mr. Roger Doebke, Newport Beach OWNERS: Charles W. and Theresa V. Phillips, Ray Daniger, Marie Johnson; Commissioner Allen stated that the work; has been completed on this project, yet permits were never issued. She expressed her concern withl this type of action and suggested that the Commission study this problem. She stated that licensed, professional architects and contractors know the requirements, yet some choose to ignore the re- quirements. Planning Director Hewicker. concurred with Commissi.oner Allen that this is a'reoccur.rin problem and stated that he has been discussing this with the Building Director. • -10- Item #4 WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY CUMMISSIUNLKS 1`�rw December 18, 1980 MINUTES City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX Commissioner McLaughlin asked staff to explain how building permits can be obtained after the construction has taken place. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the applicant will have to apply for the building permit and pay double the fee. The applicant will also be requited to submit plans, and the Building Department will inspect the project. The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Rich Beigle of James Crosby Engineer!, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Beigle state that construction has.been started, but that the project is not yet completed. He stated that the applicant had hired an architect and a contractor who had originally started the construction. He stated that the applicant has been victimized be- cause permits were never issued or applied for. He stated that in the interim, he has taken over the project to insure that the requirements will • be met. Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Beigle if they were agreement with the staff report findings and J,in conditions. Mr. Beigle stated that they were in concurrence wi °th the staff report. Motion Motion was made to waive the required parcel map All Ayes X X flXI X X X and approve the applicant's request with the findings and conditions as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: That the building sites are under multiple ownership., 2. That the exi -sting leases are of sufficient length to guarantee that the lots which COMMISSIONERS1 December 18, 1980 MINUTES ri r m O Ci • on Beach constitute the building sites, will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the existing improvements. CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City in a manner satis- factory to the City Attorney. 2. That should the existing leases be terminated at any time, the opening between structures shall be closed and this waiver shall become null and void. 3. That the City Attorney's office shall re- view the existing leases as to forym and content to insure that the opening .will be closed at the expiration of the existing leases. 4. That permits be obtained in the Building Department for all existing illegal construction. 5. That the structure be brought into; con - formance will all applicable Building, Plumbing, Electrical; and Mechanical Codes. -12- December 18, 1980 w City of Newport Beach MINUTES Request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted the remodel of an existing build- ing so as to allow the establishment of a restau- rant and commercial fish market with on -sale al.coholic beverages in the M -1 District. The proposed amendment'requests the deletion. of cer- tain conditions of approval of the original use permit and the acceptance of a new off =site parking agreement for a portion of the'requi'red parking spaces. A modification to the Zoning Code is also .requested since a portion of the proposed off -site parking,spaces encroach 4 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard adjacent to an alley. LOCATION: Lots No. 1 and 2, Block 428, Lan - caster's Addition to Newport Beach, located at 2800 Lafayette Avenue on -the northeasterly corner of Lafayette Avenue and 28th Street in Cannery Village. . ZONE: M -1 APPLICANT: Archi- Tekton, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Tonti- Walker Investors, Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker stated that the pro- posed parking lot is currently being utilized as a dry boat storage facility. He stated that the parcel is not a waterfront parcel. He also state that if this were a waterfront parcel under the Local Coastal Program which is currently pending before the City Council, the dry boat storage would be considered as an incentive use under the recreation and marine`commercial designation and would automatically be a permitted,use. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Com- mission should be aware that approval of this application will recommend the replacement of a dry boat storage facility with a.parking lot for a restaurant in Cannery Village. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Peter Tonti, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Tonti stated that -13- INDEX Item #5 APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY Motion All Ayes 0 I 4MISSIONERS December 18, 1980 MINUTES ao City of Newport Beach they presented this application to the Regional Coastal Commission and received unanimous approva on same. He stated that the Coastal Commission requirements are included in-the staff report requirements as found in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Tonti added that they are in total concurrence with the findings and conditions as found.:in the staff report. Commissioner Allen stated that the City'is cur- rently considering a plan for the Rhine Channel area, which would require an easement along the waterfront. She asked Mr. Tonti if such a plan were to be implemented, would he have any ob- jections in connecting his sidewalk toy adjacent sidewalks. Mr. Tonti stated that they would have no objections to this. ii Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1949, X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1 2: 3. That the proposed use is.consis the City.of Newport Beach Gener and is compatible with surround uses. The project will not have any s environmental impact. The Police Department ha.s indic they do not contemplate any pro 4. The the Plan 5. proposed structure is in ke desired.character of the Sp as identified by the Gener The proposed use will not.precl attainment of the Specific Area jectives stated in the Land Use of the General Plan. . -14- t with Plan land ificant d that MS. ng with fic Area Plan the an ob -. ement INDEX December 18, 1980 o x �a 'o City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX 10. The off -site parking spaces will not create undue traffic hazards in the sur- rounding areas. In fact, the proposed parking layout of the subject parking lots will create better automobile storage than :now exists. 11. The City Traffic Engineer has no objec- tions with the off -site parking greement. 12. That the goals and objectives of the Local Coastal Plan will not be prejudiced by this decision. That.this projecl is.in no way bearing on any other wate frent project. -15- 6. That the establishment of off - street parking spaces in the required ten foot alley setback on the off -site par ing -1 ots will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,:comfort and general Welfare of persons residing or wo ki.ng 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 consis- tent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No..19 9 (Amend- ed) will not, under the circumsta ces of this case, be detrimental to the iealth, safety, peace, morals, comfort ani general welfare of persons residing and w rking in the neighborhood or be detrimenta or in- jurious to property or improvemen s in the. neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 8. The off- site.parking areas are located so... as to be useful to the proposed 'ses. 9. The applicants are proposing to nter into .and record reciprocal parking an access agreements. 10. The off -site parking spaces will not create undue traffic hazards in the sur- rounding areas. In fact, the proposed parking layout of the subject parking lots will create better automobile storage than :now exists. 11. The City Traffic Engineer has no objec- tions with the off -site parking greement. 12. That the goals and objectives of the Local Coastal Plan will not be prejudiced by this decision. That.this projecl is.in no way bearing on any other wate frent project. -15- COMMISSIONERS CALL is • w a F D 9 w December 18, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES 13. That based on a careful review of the pro- posed project and the testimony presented at the public hearing, additional off- street parking is not required to be pro - vided for the commercial slips. 14. That the hours restaurant and are such so as street parking be detrimental either use. of operation of commercial fishi to allow joint u facilities that to the peak occu e proposed boats of off - 11 not ncy of CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans, floor plans and elevations,.exce t as noted below. 2. That an off -site parking agreem be approved by the City Council ing that a minimum of 18 parkin shall be provided on Lots 10 an Block 230, Lancaster's Addition port Beach, for the duration of proposed use. 3. The approved off -site parking to and 2 shall also be maintained f lsubject. commercial use at all ti it shall luarantee- spaces 11 of :o New - ;he. s Nos. 1 r the es. 4. That said agreements shall be si ned by the applicants prior to the.issu nce of building permits. 5. That. employees of the restaurant shall be required to park on.the approved off -site parking.lots, and three (3) spac s shall be provided fo.r the commercial slips during their hours of operations. 6. That any mechanical equipment ani trash areas shall be screened from the adjoining residential property and from ab tting streets. are INDEX December 18, 1980 9 w GtV Of MINUTES -17- 7.-4 A Harbor Permit (for any portion of the building over the water and for tny work idone bayward of the existing bul head), ;Army Corps of Engineers Permit aid a !Coastal Commission Permit shall. )e secured for the proposed project. I 8. If there is a transfer of owners ip of the 'uplands, the Harbor Permit shall be trans - ferred to the applicants.. 9. During construction activities, Jebris .shall be prevented from entering the bay through the use of traps and containment booms in a manner satisfactory t the Planning, Building and Marine De artments. 10. The restaurant site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building Department. • ll. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted with the.grading permi applica- 'tion and will be subject to the approval of the Building Director. II 12. The erosion and.sil.tation control - plan shall be approved by the California Re- Itional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region). The plan must be submitted to the Board thirty days prior td. initiating construction activities. 13. The applicants shall maintain the resta- urant site in a clean and orderly manner and will provide the periodic debris collection and disposal. 14. The applicants shall provide on -site reten- tion basins (i.e., grease traps)!and pro - vide for their maintenance, if required Iby the Building -Department. Themainten- ante program shall.be- reviewed; by the General Services Director and approved by the Building Department. -17- w � m x w CALL December 18, 1980 on Beach MINUTES INDEX 15. The applicants shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all surface parking area. 16. The final design of the parking lots shall be approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. 12. The project shall be landscaped as depicted on the site plan including the proposed landscape planter areas in the off - -site parking lots. However, no landscaping or other obstructions shall be permitted within 5 feet of the alley r.ight -of -way adjacent to Off- Site Parking Areas 1, 2 and 3. 18. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. • 19. The landscape plan shall include a mainten- ance. program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 2Q. The landscape plan shall include an irri- gation plan designed to minimize water usage and prevent over - watering. u � 21. The landscape plan shall place heavy 'emphasis on the use of drought= resistant native vegetation. 22. Final design of the .:project shall provide for the incorporation of water-'saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 23.. A provision for weekly debris cleanup around the commercial slip area shall be made prior to „the occupancy of the proposed project. 24.. Prior to the occupancy of the building, a - program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. _18_ December 18, 1980 a City of Newport Beach MINUTES . . INDEX 25. The use of valets for parking shall be re- quired during all hours of operation. Said valet service shall be required to.park all automobiles on the approved offsite parking lots and not on adjoining property or streets. 26. A. sufficient number of valets shall be - -- employed to prevent restaurant customers from having to wait in the street. 27. 'Due to the demand for parking in'this area, lit will be necessary for.the applicants to ?ensure that the off -site parking lots are snot used by others, to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. 28. That a minimum of one parking space for each 40 sq. ft. of "net public area" of 'the restaurant facility, and one'parking space for each 250 sq. ft. of floaor area • `in the fish market shall be provided. 29. That ail applicable conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 650 required.for this 'project be fulfilled, 30. IThat the existing underground fueil storage Ifacil.ity located on. proposed off -ISite 'Parking Lot No. 1 shall be removed or filled in accordance with the requirements of the Building Department. 31. That all improvements (curb, gutter, side - - walk and paveout) be constructed. - =along the.: Villa Way and 28th Street frontages of Lots 27 and 28, Block 225, with an access .ramp to be constructed at the corner of Villa Way and 28th Street. 32. That the existing substandard and deter - iorated curb and sidewalk along Newport Boulevard adjacent to Lots 4 - 8, Block 225, be reconstructed with new standard curb and gutter and full width sidewalk. . All unused existing drive approaches shall be closed up. _19- COMMISSIONERS December 18, 1980 MINUTES City of Newpor t Beach kLL INDEX 33. That full width concrete alley pavement be constructed in the alley parallel. to :New -- port Boulevard, extending from 28th Street; to the northerly line of Lot 8, Block 225.', 34. That a fifteen foot radius corner cutoff at the southwesterly corner of Villa Way and 28th Street be dedicated to ,.the public. 35. That a standard agreement and accompanying;, surety be provided to guarantee.the satis -j factory completion of public improvements if it is desired to obtain Building Permit before the public improvements are com- pleted. i 36. That the applicant shall provide docking facilities for the existing commercial fishing vessells, and assure any-rate in- creases will not exceed commercial index pricing and added cost, if mandated on tideland fees. . • 37. That the retail seafood market shall be limited to said use, with no on -sale or take -out food permitted and shall be limited to .a net floor area not to exceed , 500 square feet. 38. That the project shall provide elevator or ramp access for handicapped to the first and second floors of the restaurant. 39. That all improvements (curb, gutter, side. - walk and paneout) be constructed along the 29th Street frontages of Lots -10 and 11, Block 230 with an access ramp to be constructed at the corner of Villa Way_, and 29th Street. 40. That a :15 -foot radius corner cutoff.at the northwesterly corner of Villa Way; and 28th Street be.dedicated to the pubiicl. 41.! That the street improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a . licensed civil engineer. 42. That all previous conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 1949 no longer apply and shall be considered null and void. j -20- December 18, 1980 z 202 MINUTES 2910 Request to convert an existing duplex into a Item #6 two unit residential condominium. AND AND Request to create one parcel of land for con- Item #7 dom.inium purposes where one lot exists so as to allow the conversion of an existing duplex USE PERM into a two unit condominium project. N0: 1969 -21- LOCATION: Lot 7, Block 2 of Section 4, Balboa AND Island Tract, located at 107 and 109; Grand Canal on the westerly side of RESUB- Grand Canal between Park Avenue DIVISION and South Bayfront, on Balboa 90. 672 Island. ZONE: R -1.5 Continued APPLICANT: Arnold and Charlene Mills, Balboa to January 8, 1981. Island OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach Staff advised that the applicant has requested that these items be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on January 8, 1981. Motion X Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 1969 All Ayes X X X XX X X and Resubdivision No. 672 to the meeting of January 8, 1981, which MOTION.CARRIED. Request to create one parcel of land where eight Item #8 lots and an abandoned alley now exist so as to permit the remodeling of an existing commercial RESUB- building located in the C -1 -H District. DIVISION LOCATION: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block H, Tract N0. 673 No. 323 and Lots 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10, Continued Block 436, Corona del Mar Tract, to January and all of a vacated alley, located 8, 1981 at 3015 East Coast Highway, on the westerly side of East Coast Highway ; between Iris Avenue and Jasmine • Avenue in Corona del Mar. -21- December 18, 1980 M o Citv of Newport Beach ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Newport Balboa Savings and.Loan, Newport Beach OWNERS: E. Morris Smith and Romona Smith, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William. Frost and Associates., Newport Beach MNUTES Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, referred to Exhibit A of the staff report, Condition No. 4 regarding the existing storm drain, and stated that the applicant has objected to this condition of approval. He stated that the storm drain was constructed in 1946 without the benefit of the design and approval of the City.. He stated that . there have been structural failures in several different sections of the drain. He also stated that the City is in the process of constructing a new storm drain to replace the old one. • Mr. Webb stated that he would like to revise Condition No. 4 and add 3 modified conditions of approval for.Resubdivision No. 673 As follows: 4. That the applicant pay the cost differential to increase the size of the City's proposed storm drain lateral, junction structure, catch basin and other appurtenances to allow the abandonment of the existing storm drain under and through the site. 5.1 That when the City has completed the diver- sion and abandons the storm drain under and through the site, the property owner will accept a quitclaim from the City for all rights and obligations, if any, that the City may have related to the abandoned storm drain. That at the time.the storm drain across the site is abandoned, the property owner will be responsible for connecting all on -site drains affected by the abandonment, to the City's new storm drain in Iris Avenue. I I I I I I 1 -22- COMMISSIONERS �m 0 r1 U December 18, 1980 z Beach That applicant prepare and execute an agree - ment.which holds City harmless for liability of damage that occurs to the premises due to a fail.ure of the existing storm drain until the existing storm drain is abandoned. MINUTES Mr. Webb stated that the applicant was informed today of the modified conditions. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he had re- ceived a call the day before, from the applicant' attorney, expressing their concern regarding the original Condition No. 4. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and the architect, Mr. Paul Ruffing, repre- senting the Newport Balboa Savings and Loan, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Ruffing stated that they have not.been given adequate time to consider alternatives to this problem. He stated that they do object to Condition Nos. 4 th,ru 7, in that these modified conditions will impose unreasonable hardships on the project. He stated that this proposal is.for minor remodel improvements which will be upgrading the area and introducing =a much lower density use to the area. Chairman Haidinger asked Mr. Ruffing.if a con - tinuance.of this.item would be helpful. Mr. Ruffing stated that it may be helpful, but that the .responsibility of the storm drain goes much beyond th.e.parcel map, because it is a legal matter. He stated that they .feel as though the conditions imposed are much to strict for what is being proposed. Commissioner Beek stated that without the hold harmless agreement, the,applicant preserves his right to.sue the City. Mr. Ruffing stated this is a .storm drain that no one knows anything about. He added that for what they are proposing, they feel at though this would be a strict condition. Commissioner Beek asked staff if pursuing ease- ments and obtaining hold harmless agreements alon the course of this storm drain has been a City policy. Mr. Webb stated that there have been ver -23- INDEX December 18, 1980 MINUTES w t 0 (go City of INDEX few opportunities to do. this. He stated that in this.instance, this is a parcel map where more conditions maybe placed. He stated that they. are working to completely eliminate this particul storm drain. Mr. Webb then explained the new drain lateral that the City is currently working on. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Ruffing how much of an expenditure the remodel.wil.1 take. Mr. Ruffing stated that it will cost approximately $200,000. Motion X Motion was made to continue Resubd.ivision.No. 673 All Ayes X X X X YX X to January 8, 1981, so that a meeting can be. scheduled with the applicant and the City staff to discuss Condition of Approval No. 4 and the related modified conditions suggested by the Public Works Department, which MOTION CARRIED. • Request to permit the conversion of a portion of Item #9 an existing commercial office into a take -out ice cream parlor in the Harbor View Center in USE PERM the C -O -H District. NO. 1968 LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 35 -1 (Resub- division No. 284), located at 1644 APPROVED San Miguel Drive on the northeasterly CONDI corner of San Miguel Drive and San TIONALLY Joaquin Hills Road, in the Harbor View Center. ZONE: C -O -H APPLICANT: Ran Sherman Associates, Inc., dba Sherm's Ice Cream, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Co., Newport Beach The public hearing opened,in connection with this item and Mr. Ron Sherman, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Sherman stated that he was in concurrence with the staff report findings and conditions. • I I I I I I I 1 -24- COMMISSIONERS1 December 18, 1980 MINUTES x m 7 i _a0 7y N CALL of Newport Beach INDEX Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Sherman who maintain the courtyard. -Mr. Sherman stated that The Irvin Company maintains the courtyard. Mr. Barry West, owner of Newport Stationers, whic is located next to the proposed ice.cream parlor, appeared in opposition to this case. Mr. West stated that the leasing.of this facility will cause problems for his business and the other businesses located within the center. He stated that although The Irvine Company will be respon- sible for the trash and sanitary problems that occur with ice cream.parlors, he stated that he can foresee that this will be a problem.for the entire center. He .stated that people have the habit of walking into stores with food in hand. He also stated that this facility will attract juveniles to the center after school. He added that there is already a shoplifting problem with - in the center by juveniles. • Commissioner McLaughlin asked if Gelson's Market had a.take -out food service. 'Mr. West stated tha they do not sell the type of food that one can easily eat on the way out of the center. He stated that the proposed facility is not the type of environment that the Harbor View Center merchants have supported in the past. Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Sherman if he has met with the other merchants in the center. Mr. Sherman stated that he did not, but that he had relied on The Irvine Company to do so. He stated that The Irvine Company, which owns the center, felt as though this was an appropriate and desir- able use. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Sherman stated that they wi1l'require more trash pick -ups at the facility, than is currently being used. He also stated tha it is their, desire and intention to duplicate the hours of operation of Gelson's Market. Commissioner Beek. stated.that he can understand the concerns expressed by Mr. West. He stated that a possible.solution would be to grant the use permit for a limited period of time and call it in for a review. Commissioner Beek asked Mr. -25- December 18, 1980 MINUTES 11 too) I City of Newport Beach Sherman for his comments. Mr. Sherman stated that the investment he would be making is sub- stantial and that he would be subject to an exist ing five year lease he has signed with The Irvine Company. Mr. Sherman stated that he is required under the terms of his lease, to perform clean - -up work in the patio area. He added that most of the stores in the center have signs posted that they do not a1 =1ow food inside of the stores. He stated that he is even required to clean a carpet, if the damage has been caused by his product. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 1968 with the findings and conditions of Exhibit "A" as found in the staff report. Commissioner Allen asked staff to explain what mechanism the Commission would have in reviewing this use permit, in the event this facility would, • become a problem. Planning Director Hewicker stated that a time limit could be placed on the use permit, at which time it could be reviewed by the Modifications Committee or the Planning Com- mission. He stated that in many cases, the revie period conforms with the- period of the lease. Planning Director Hewicker stated that there are also provisions in the Code, that if the use be- comes a nuisance, the use can be reviewed as to the nature of the nuisance. Mr. Burnham stated that this would only apply to public nuisances. Mr. Burnham stated that a third condition of ap- proval may be appropriate., in that the applicant be required to arrange for the maintenance of the area such:t.hat trash containers and the product itself from his business do not interfere.with the rights of others and the aesthetics of the area. He stated that in the event there is a problem with the trash in the future, it would be a violation of the use permit and the Commis- sion could then review same. Commissioner Balalis stated that this is totally, a private matter and that the'.Commission should • IIIIIIII -26- INDEX CC)NIMISSICNNEKS I December 18, 1980 MINUTES x w City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX not become involved in the management of a shopping center. He stated that if Mr. West should have a problem, he should. contact The Irvine Company directly to resolve same. Com- missioner Beek stated that it is of public concer because the Planning Commission is required to act upon the use permit request. Amendment X Amendment to the motion was made that the appli- cant maintain or arrange for the maintenance of the area around the business such that material sold.therein will not interfere with the property rights or business of surrounding shop owners. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would not support such an amendment, but he would support wording to the effect that the establishment will not become a public nuisance. Commissioner Allen stated that if the wording, public nuisance, would give the Commission the • right to review the use permit, this would satin her concerns. Mr. Burnham stated that the terms nuisance and public nuisance are defined in the Civil Code, but nuisances to other businesses is not. Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Sherman if he had any obj.ection`to a condition that his facility not be a nuisance to adjacent businesses. Mr. Sherman stated that he would not object to a condition of this nature. Revised Revised amendment was made that the applicant Amendment X maintain or arrange for the maintenance of the area around the business such that material sold therein will not become a nuisance to neighboring businesses. Chairman Haidinger stated that he concurred with the previous comments by Commissioner Balalis and stated that he would not be voting in 'favor of the revised amendment. Ayes X X X Commissioner McLaughlin accepted.the revised Noes X X X amendment to her motion. Revised amendment was now voted on, which CARRIED. • -27- x w December 18, 1980 MINUTES INDEX All Ayes X X X X X Revised amended motion for approval.of Use Permit No. 1968 was now voted on as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: 0 CE40 FINDINGS:. 1. That the pro.p.osed development is consistent with-the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding Tand uses. 2. Adequate off - street parking spaces and traffic circulation are being provided for the proposed development. .3. That the - Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. That the waiver of the development standards for.the proposed - take -out restaurant facility will not be detrimental to adjoining properti s. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1968 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be • detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of person residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con- formance-with the approved plot plan. 2. That the development standards for the sub- ject take -out restaurant facility, including thirteen (13) additional parking spaces, are waived. 3. That the applicant maintain or arrange for the maintenance of the area around the business such that material sold therein will not become a nuisance to neighboring businesses. 0 CE40 December 18, 1980 d ' S ` 0 CItV Of Beach Request to consider a traffic study for a pro- posed thirty -two (32) unit residential condo- minium project in the Big Canyon Planned Community. AND MINUTES Request to amend the Planning;Community Devel- opment Plan for Big Canyon so as to delete reference to the "two story" and "three story" limits for residential construction. The amend- ment also proposes to change-the height limit of thirty -five (35) feet to thirty- two.'(32) feet in all residential areas except for Area No. 10 where the existing 35 foot height limit shalt be maintained; reduce the permitted number of dwelling units in Area 10; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. AND Request to create three (3) parcels of land so as to allow the construction of .a thirty -two (32) unit residential condominium project in the Big Canyon Planned Community. AND Request to permit the construction of a 32 -unit residential.condominium complex and related garage spaces in the Big Canyon Planned Community. LOCATION: - Portions of Block 55, 56 and 93 of Irvine's Subdivision generally bounded by Ford Road, MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road, and Jamboree Road. ZONE: P -C APP'LICANT:. The Irvine Co., Newport Beach OWNER: Same-as applicant The public hearing opened in.connection with thes items and Mr. Peter Denniston, Project Manager.fo -29- INDEX TRAFFIC STUDY ITEM #10 AND AMENDMENT NQ. 554. ITEM #11, AND ITEM #12 AND ALL PPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY N 7C (A • December 18, 1980 Of The Irvine Company which is responsible for Big Canyon Area 10, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Denniston stated that a major objective in this development is for the compatibility with the existing Big Canyon Community development. MINUTES Mr. Denniston referred to Condition of Approval No. 43 of the staff report and stated that they are objecting to this requirement, which would provide for car wash facilities. He stated that according to their buyer profiles, they anticipat that a substantial number of the residents will wash their cars at commercial car wash facilities He stated that it would be difficult to enforce where the residents wash their cars, for those residents who may decide to do so themselves. He stated that they are requesting deletion of this condition. Commissioner Beek suggested that a couple of the guest parking spaces be covered, so that they may be utilized as car washing facilities. Mr. Denniston stated that this would not be compatibl with the layout of the devel.opment, because the guest parking spaces are located in front of the units. He added that a cover in front of a unit would destroy the street -scape view of the unit. Planning Director Hewicker stated that this is not the first application where the condition for a car wash facilities has been imposed. He ex- plained the needs to connect a car wash facility to the City sewer system and having the facility covered, but he questioned the practicality of such a requirement. Commissioner Thomas stated that. the idea of car washing facilities was developed to.keep urban runoff, such as oil, grease and soap, out of the bay. The intent was generated as a means of ac- commodating development without putting an onerou burden on the developer to completely prevent any runoff from entering the watershed. Commissioner Allen asked if any of the recent developments that are required to have car wash facilities have the provision included in their -30- INDEX x OD W( December 18, 1980 m Mr MINUTES . INDEX Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he is not aware of any, but that he would questi the enforceability of where a person may or may not wash their car. Commissioner Thomas referred to the EIR'and stated that he was concerned with building on a wetland and a slope. He then referred to the .3 acre marsh adjacent to the seep area, as found in Exhibit 12, and questioned the geologic stability. He added that wet surfaces slide and that.building on a wetland is not in conformance with the building regulations. Mr'. Fred Talarico; Environmental Coordinator, stated that the slope stabilization program has been reviewed quite carefully with th-e City's Grading Engineer to insure safe building sites. He stated that they do not anticipate any abnorma problems that can not be corrected. Mr. Talarico stated that a seep on the site is causing the is wetland vegetation. He stated that it was not felt that this was the intent of the wetland policy in :the General Plan, to apply that defini- tion to this site. Commissioner Thomas stated that the biological report clearly identifies seeps and wetlands_ He then referred'to the biological assessments as found in the EIR. Mr. Denniston stated that most of the water on the site is the result of irrigation water from San Joaquin Hills Drive. He stated that most of this water will be diverted with the grading work and subdrain.systems that are being pro- posed. He added that the site would become more stable with the proposed work. Commissioner Thom stated that subdrain systems may or may.not work. Mr. Talarico stated that there are no rare, en- dangered plants or plant species in this area. He stated that he d,id feel that the policies dealing with marshes would be applicable on this site. I I I! I I I I - 31 - WISSIONERS December 18, 1980 X I City of Newport Beach MINUTES INDEX Planning Director Hewicker stated that there may be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a wetland marsh, as to whether it has occurred naturally over a period of time; or has.occurred due to neglect because or irrigation from a land- scaped street. Commissioner Thomas stated that while some.of the marsh may be 'due from the irrigation from Newport Canter, it is still considered to be a wetland area. Chairman Haidinger asked Commissioner Thomas if it was his desire to retain the marsh in that area, or was he concerned with the slope stabilit Commissioner Thomas stated that there should be more information obtained on the seepage and how to deal with it. Commissioner Thomas also stated that perhaps a hold harmless agreement should be obtained so that the City is not held liable in the future for slipping and seepage. • Commissioner Thomas referred to Exhibit 3 of the EIR.and'stated that he was concerned with the coastal sage scrub located on the lower end of the site. He s -tated that the EIR calls this site out as a natural vegetation community and is com- patible with the surrounding wildlife corridor. He referred to Condition No. 24 of the staff report for Tentative Tract Map No'. 10814 and stated that it should be expanded to preserve the area as identified in the mapping of Exhibit No. 12, with the exception of the narrow arm which extends up into the site. Commissioner Balalis stated that he would support a condition for a hold harmless agreement for the building on the slopes. He then referred to Condition No. 24 and stated that perhaps the wording "to the maximum extent practicable" shout be changed to the word "protect ". Commissioner Balalis added that in the past, the term wetland has applied to an area.immediat,ely adjacent to the.bay. He stated that he did not feel as thoug this particular site would apply.. • 11111111 -32- N 7C p! December 18, 1980 M Beach MINUTES W910 Mr. Burnham stated that a hold harmless agreement would be an agreement to indemnify and defend, so that the City would not incur any liability. Motion Y Motion was made to approve the Traffic Study with All Ayes YX X X XX X the following findings, which MOTION CARRIED: TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study for the propos.ed.pro- ject has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code and City Policy S -1, and; that based on the Traffic Study, 2. The traffic projected one year after project • completion during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical inter - s-ection will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period. Motion X. Motion was made to - approve the "Big. Canyon Area All.Ayes X X X X W X 10 Draft EIR" and recommend that-the City Counc certify the Environmental Document is complete, direct staff to prepare a Statement of Facts and make the findings listed below, which MOTION CARRIED: DRAFT EIR FINDINGS: .l. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 11, That the contents of the environmental docu- ment have been considered in the various • decisions on this project. -33- 3 � y CALL December 18, 1980 W Beach MINUTES 3. That based on the information contained in the environmental document, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the pro - Sect, and that the economic benefits that. would accrue to the community, as demostrated in the document, together with the mitigation measures override the anticipated negative effects of the project. Motion Y Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1060, All Ayes YX X X X X approving Amendment No. 554 and recommending , s -ame to the City Council for adoption with the findings listed below, which MOTION CARRIED: -AMENDMENT NO. 554 FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with • the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA'),. the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy, 2. That the contents of the environmental docu- ment.has.been considered in.the decision of this portion of the'project. 3. That based on the information contained in the environmental document, the project in- corporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the pro- ject, and that the economic benefits that would accrue to the community, as demon- strated in the document, together with the mitigation measures override the anticipated negative effects of the. project. Motion I I I ' I I Motion was made for approval of Tentative Tract Map No -. 10814, subject to the following changes: Condition No. 12 - To be revised as proposed by staff: 12) The width of -the concrete sidewalk to be constructed along the northerly • side of San Joaquin Hills Road is to be sub- -34- INDEX CL December 18, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES INDEX ject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works. Handicapped acces! ramps. -are to be constructed at both inter- sections of Big Canyon Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road. Top of slope along San Joaquin Hills Road shall be two feet behind property line. tion. No. 24 - To be worded as follows: 4 he existing coastal sage scrub in the northern portion of the project shall be maintained in a natural condition. Conditio -n No.. 43 - This condition will remain as a part of the motion. Condition No. 57 - This added condition will be worded as follows: 51) That the existing fresh water marsh as called out in the EIR, the '.3 acres shall not be built upon as per the guidelines adopted in.General Plan Amendment No. 79 -1. • Condition No 58 - This added condition will be worded as follows: 58) That the applicant shall supply the City with a hold harmless agreement. Mr. Burnham suggested that it may -be appropriate to impose the condition of the hold harmless agr ment on both the tentative tract map and the use permit. Mr. D.enniston stated that the golf course area will be, preserving much of the coastal sage area. He stated that the have tried to also preserve some of the existing native sage. He requested that Condition No. 24 and Condition No. 57, as proposed by Commissioner Thomas not be imposed, as these conditions will cause major development problems. • 1111 1111 -35- 9 0 2 W� 3 N F N December 18, 1980 m Beach Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr. Denniston if he would object to the original wording of Con - dition No. 24.. Mr. Denniston stated that they do n.ot object to the original wording. MINUTES Commissioner Thomas stated that the slide area is not in the coastal sage area, according to the map. Mr. Denniston referred to Exhibit 11 and described' th.e area that would be involved. Com- missioner Balalis suggested that the area needs to be identified more clearly. Commissioner Thomas referred to Exhibit '3 and Exhibit 12 and stated that they be combined to form an overlay. He stated that he was.not including the narrow extended arm of coastal sage scrub. Mr. Denniston stated that it was his understandin that the major concern was to preserve the arroyo area, which has been preserved in the conceptual grading plan. He stated that they are only pro- posing a 32 unit project and that Condition No. • 24 as proposed, will take a cut of approximately. 2 units from the project. Amendment X Amendment to the motion was made that the wording in Condition No. 24, "to the maximum extent practicable" as found in the staff report, be included. Amendment I 1111 Revision to the amendment was made that the Revision X wording "to the maximum extent practicable" be included, and to add, "that in no event shall the arroyo at the north boundary of the parcel be disturbed." Ayes Noes • Commissioner Thomas stated that this is the oppor tune time to preserve a biological community that is compatible with the existing development of the.area and does not place a financial hardship on the developer of the property. Amendment to.Eondition No. 24 by Commissioner McLaughlin, as revised by Commissioner Balalis was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. -36- INDEX Amendment Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Noes Ayes Noes • O Ri W RL XIX December 18, 1980 Z M • 1 Amendment to the motion was made to delete Con- dition No. 43 from the requirements. MINUTES Commissioner McLaughlin stated that the condition for.the car.wash facility is an attempt to pre - serve part of the bay. She.stated that it would not cause an unreasonable hardship on the develop to do so. Commissioner Balalis stated that he felt as though the facilities would not be utilized. Amendment to the motion by Commissioner Balalis X to delete Condition No. 43 was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. X Amendment to the motion was made to delete Con - X X. X X dition No. 57 as proposed by Commissioner Thomas, which would not allow for the wetland to be built upon, which MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Haidinger.stated that the condition for the hold.harmless agreement would now become the last condition. X X X X Motion by Commissioner Thomas as amended, was now voted-on for the approval of.Tentative Tract Map No. 10814, with the findings and revised conditions as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10814 FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with California Environmental Quality.Act (CEQA), .the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental docu- ment have been considered in the decisions of this portion of the project. B&Z INDEX 11VIDN"NrK3 December 18, 1980 F 21 � I City of Newport Beach 3. That based. on the information.contained in the environmental document, the pro.ject incorporates sufficient mitigation mea- sures to reduce the adverse effects of the project,,and that the economic benefits that would accrue to the community, as demonstrated in the document, together with the mitigation measures override the :anticipated negative effects of the pro - ject. 4. :That the proposed project inconsistent :with the Newport Beach General Plan and !the Big Canyon Planned Community District. 5. '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 Ithe plan of subdivision.. 6. 'That the proposed subdivision presents no !problems from a planning standpoint. 7. 'That the site is physically suitable for ithe type of development proposed. 8. iThat the site is physically suitable for Ithe proposed density of development. 9. iThat the design of the subdivision or the .proposed improvement will not substantially jand avoidably injure fish or wildlife or ,their habitat. 10. IThat the design of the subdivision or the ;proposed improvements are not likely to ;cause serious public health problems. 11. 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. MR MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS1 December 18, 1980 CALL • C� M U. D ; City of Newport Beach 12. That the discharge of waste from the pro_ posed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing require- ments prescribed by a California Regional Water.Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That a final map(s) be filed. 2.., That all improvements be constructed as re- quired by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. -; That each dwelling unit-be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless.otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. MINUTES That the design of the private streets and drives conform with the City's private street policy (L -4), except as approved by the Public Works Department. The basic right -of -way width shall be.a minimum of 40 feet. The location, width, configuration, and concept of the private street and drive system shall be subject to further review and approval by the City's Traffic Engineer. 5. That easements for ingress, egress and pub- lic utility purposes on all private streets be dedicated to the City and that all ease- ; ments be shown on the tract map 6.; That the intersection of the private streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other ob- structions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. -39- INDEX WISSIOIERS December 18, 1980 s y N City of Newport Beach 7. That all vehicular access rights tQ_San - - - Joaquin Hills Road be released and relin- quished to the City. 8.1 That the final design of the on -site pede- 1 strian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 9. That the California Vehicle Code be enfor- ced on the private streets and drives, and that delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private ; streets and drives. i 10.11 That the water capital improvement fees be paid. ll.i That an agreement and accompanying surety guaranteeing completion of the public im- provements be provided, if it is desired to record a final map prior to the comple- tion of the public improvements. i MINUTES 12. The width of the concrete sidewalk to be - constructed along the northerly side of San Joaquin Hills Road is to be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works. Handicapped access ramps are to be constructed at both intersections of Big Canyon Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road. Top of slope along San Joaquin Hills Road shall be two feet behind property line. 13. That street, drainage and utility improve- ments be shown on sta- nd_.r _d__ improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer 14. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording ! of the final map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown of be re- quired by the study shall be the responsi- bility of the developer. That asphalt or -40 -. COMMISSIONERS w C� • December 18, 1980 15. 16. 1 17 . In 19 20 21 on Beach concrete ac -cue-- --roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes and junction structure locations. That easements dedicated to the City be a minimum of ten feet in width, with wider easements provided where required by the Public Works Department. That.the architectural character and land- scape design established within the exist- ing Big Canyon P -C District shall be main- tained. 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 construc- tion 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). The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. The landscape plan shall include a mainten- ance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. The landscape plan shall place heavy em- phasis on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a .system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. The landscape plan shall place heavy em- phasis on fire- retardant vegetation. 22.1 Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. -41- MINUTES I 1 i i December 18, 1980 �Fw In GtV Of MINUTES INDEX 23. Landscaping shall free of weeds and shall be regularly healthy condition. be regularly maintained. debris. All vegetation trimmed and kept in a 24. To the maximum extent practicable, the existing coastal sage scrub in the northern portion of the project shall be maintained in the landscape plan, and that in no event shall the arroyo at the north boundary of the parcel be disturbed. 25. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 26.y That a grading plan shall include a com j plete plan for temporary and permanent ij drainage facilities, to minimize any iI potential impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. • 27., The grading permit shall include, if re- quired, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping programs designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 28,11 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. 29.1 The velocity of concentrated run -off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the pro - ject design. 30.! That grading shall be conducted in accor- dance with plans prepared by a Civil En- gineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a compre- hensive 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. -42- 91 December 18, 1980 ZI Beach MINUTES -43- 31. That the applicant provide for vacuum sweeping of all private streets equal to that service provided by the City for residential area streets. 32;1 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from I. the project will not increase erosion im- mediately downstream of the system, this shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Department. i 3-3.i That erosion control measures shall be 1 done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. • 34. Control of infiltration to the groundwater ii system from the project shall be provided as part of the project design. 35. That mitigation measures 1 thru 9 contained on pages 14 thru 16 of the "Big Canyon Area No. 10 - Draft EIR" shall be incorporated i into the final project unless otherwise modified by conditions of approval con - tained herein or the City's Grading Engineer. 36.1 A subdrain system shall be installed sub- ! ject to the approval of the Building Department. 37.E That final design of.the project shall provide for the incorporation of water- 1 saving devices for project lavatories and other water using facilities. 38. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. -43- )MMISSIONERS December 18, 1980 I � I City of Newport Beach MINUTES 39. -- -That should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or palenotologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construc- tion activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K -5 and K -6. 40. That prior to the issuance of any building permit authorized by the approval of this project, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director, a sum propor- tional.to the percentage of future addi- tional traffic related to the project in the subject area, but not to exceed $5,350.00 to be used for the .construction of a wall on the westerly slide of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive and Ford Road. 41. That the final design of onl_site pedestrian • circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and!the Planning Department. 42. The project shall comply with the Uniform Building Code - 19.Edition and /or the California Administrative Code Titles 19 and 24. 43. That prior to the occupancy of any unit a qualified accoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense ?shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the noise im- pact from San Joaquin Hills Road on the project does not exceed 65 db CNEL for outside living areas and the requirements of law for interior spaces. C, J 44. The applicant shall review, and to the maximum extent practicable incorporate the potential energy mitigation measures described in Appendix I of the Big Canyon Area No. 10 - Draft EIR, to the satisfac- tion of the Planning Director. -44- INDEX December 18, 1980 CL di D q ( x : S City of Newport Beach 51. That all approved 52. That all and Fire approved Departme access to the buildings be by the Fire Department. .on site fire protection (hydrants Department connections) shall be by the Fire and Public Works nt. 53. That fire .vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be ap- proved by the Fire Department. 54. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available. -45- MINUTES INDEX 45. That prior to the issuance of building . permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require auto- matic fire sprinkler protection. 46. That any cul -de -sac, building address, and street name shall comply with City Stan- dards and shall be approved by the Fire Department. 47. That the Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 48. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 49. That a "defensible space" concept shall be incorporated to the construction and de- sign of the project and be reviewed and approved by the Police Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 50. The proposed project shall incorporate an internal securing 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. 51. That all approved 52. That all and Fire approved Departme access to the buildings be by the Fire Department. .on site fire protection (hydrants Department connections) shall be by the Fire and Public Works nt. 53. That fire .vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be ap- proved by the Fire Department. 54. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available. -45- MINUTES INDEX 111V103"'NE'" December 18, 1980 ao �n�a H g City of Newport Beach INDEX 55. That prior to the recordation of.the final tract map, the applicant shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at.the option of the City, for park and recreation purposes, in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code ( "Park Dedication "). 56. That the.applicant shall prepare and execute an agreement approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, the affect of which is to obligate applicant to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Newport Beach with respect to any claim, loss, damage or injury that may arise from,, or any way be related -to, the movement of earth and soil within the project area.. The Commission determined that the hold harmless agreement would not.be included as a condition o ILI[E approval for Use Permit No. 1964. ion X Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1964 l s X X X YX .X with.the findings and conditions as follows, whi Noes X MOTION CARRIED: USE PERMIT NO. 1964 FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document is complete and'has been prepared in compliance with California Environmental-Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That t•he contents of the environmental docu- ment'have been considered in the decisions on this portion of the project. 3. That based on the information contained in the Environmental - Document, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the pro - .ject, and that the economic benefits that would accrue to the community, as demon- strated in the document, together with the mitigation measures override the anticipated negative effects of the project. • ILI[E iM1!)NUNLK!5 December 18, 1980 ao x Citv of Newport Beach INDEX • 4. That the proposed project is consistent with the.Newport Beach General Plan and the Big Canyon Planned Community District. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1964 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 neigh- borhood of the general welfare of the City. 6. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 7. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. CONDITIONS: 1. That all applicable conditions of Tentative Tract No. 10814 be fulfilled. 2.. That approval of Use Permit No. 1964 not be effective until and unless Tentative Tract No. 10814 is approved. 3. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. • I I( I I I I -47- 1MISSIONERS December 18, 1980 �a �n y City of Newport Beach Request to delete a previously approved conditio of approval.of Resubdivision No. 501 that per- mitted the creation of three parcels of land for development in Civic Plaza. The proposed amend- ment will permit vehicular access to Santa Cruz Drive where the dedication of all vehicular acce rights to Santa Cruz Drive was originally re- quired. LOCATION: Parcel Map 81 -9 (Resub. No. 501), located on Blocks 700 and 800 in Newport Center, on the southwesterl, side of San Joaquin Hills Road be- tween Jamboree Road and Santa Cruz Drive in the Civic Plaza Planned Community. ZONE_: P -C APPL.ICANT: The Irvine Co., Newport. Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Mr. Don Webb, Assitant City Engineer, stated tha the right turn in and out driveway will not ap- preciably affect the traffic service on Santa Cruz Drive. The public hearing opened in connection with thi item and Mr. Tom Broell of The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Broell stat that that were in concurrence with the staff report. Motion I f j j j IXjj Motion was made-to approve the modification of All Ayes X X X X X Condition 4B, and added conditions of Resubdivi- sion No. 501 as follows -, which MOTION CARRIED: CHANGE FROM: "4b. All vehicular access rights to Santa Cruz Drive. Im INDEX Item #14 RESUB- DIVISION COMMISSIONERS Fix �a December 18, 1980 M Beach TO:' "4.b. All vehicular access rights to Santa Cruz Drive shall be dedicated to the City except for one location at approxi- mately midpoint of the frontage.." ADD: 14 ?. That the drive entrance on Santa Cruz Drive be for right - turn ingress and egress only, with the design of the access to be approved by the Public Works Department. 15. That the traffic signal at San , Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Drive be modi- fied to add left -turn phases for San Joaquin Hills Road. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Draft Phase III Work Program of the LCP The Planning Commission discussed with the staff the Local Coastal Program, Draft Phase III Work Program Zoning and Implementing Ordinances. Commissioner Allen stated that she appreciated the opportunity for the Commission to comment on this issue. Chairman Haidinger expressed the Commission's surprise and concern at the cost of the Phase III Implementation Work Program. Commissioner Thomas suggested that prior to the consultant preparing the report in the area of policy issues, they hold hearings with the Com- mission to develop the priority policy items. Commissioner Balalis stated that there should be adequate input, both from the public and the Com mission before th.e report is finalized. Commis- .. sioner Allen concurred. -49- INDEX DDIT Motion All Ayes 0 • m � '4 � ii7KCK N December 18, 1980 M Beach �11NUTE5 i Excused Absences X Motion was made for excused absences for Commis X X X W X sioner Balalis and Commissioner Cokas for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 8, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. The being no further business, the. Planning Commission adjourned at 11:15 p.m. George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -50- INDEX