Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9961 - Big Canyon Planned Community DevelopmentJAS! 26 1981 Sy the Qfy couj1be>E6 0177 Or NffV%o p MACH i • RESOLUTION NO. 9961 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING THE PLANNED COMMU- NITY DEVELOPMENT FOR BIG CANYON TO DELETE REFERENCE TO THE "TWO STORY" AND "THREE STORY" LIMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, TO CHANGE THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF 35 FEET TO 32 FEET IN ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS EXCEPT FOR AREA 10, TO REDUCE THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IN AREA 10, AND ACCEPTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that final amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan must be approved by a resolution of the City Council setting forth full particulars of the amend- ments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 18, 1980, at which time it considered certain amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Big Canyon to delete reference to the "two story" and "three story" limits for residential construction, to change the height limit of 35 feet to 32 feet in all residential areas except for Area No. 10, and to reduce the permitted number of dwelling units in Area 10; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1060, recommending to the that certain amendments to the Planned Community for Big Canyon, as set forth in the Planning Comi Of December 18, 1980, attached hereto as Exhibit reference made a part hereof, be adopted; and City Council Development Plan nission Minutes "A" and by this WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that said amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Big Canyon as set forth in said Exhibit "A" are desirable and neces- sary; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments in accordance with all provisions of law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the proposed amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Big Canyon to delete reference to the "two story" and "three story" limits for residential construction, to change the height limit of 35 feet to 32 feet in all residential areas except for Area No. 10, and to reduce the permitted number of dwelling units in Area No. 10, as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the environmental documenta- tion is hereby accepted. ADOPTED this 9(,rh day of .rangy , 1981. 1. - �i,C ATTEST: • City -Clerk kv 012081 December 18, 1980 5111� n 1- 1 City of 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 shall 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 APPLICANT: The Irvine Co., Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened in connection with thes items a.nd Mr. Peter Denniston, Project Manager fo -29- INDEX TRAFFIC STUDY ITEM #10 RMT11 AMENDMENT NO. 554 ITEM #11 AND NTATIVE AND ALL APPROVED CONDI- TI NALLY w F' 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. 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 development, 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- N 7C N CALL I December 18, 1980 MINUTES Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he is not aware of any, but that he would questio 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 geologica 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 the 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 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 did feel that the policies dealing with marshes would be applicable on this site. -31- INDEX COMMISSIONERSI December 18, 1980 MINUTFS W x City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 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 Center, 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 stability. 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 stated 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" shoul be changed to the word "protect ". Commissioner Balalis added that in the past, the term wetland has applied to an area immediately adjacent to the bay. He stated that he did not feel as thoug this particular site would apply. -32- W COMMISSIONERS1 noromhor la loan MINIITFC MV �n 1 y D F City Of New rt Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 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 Motion was made to approve the Traffic Study with All Ayes W X X YX X the following findings, which MOTION CARRIED: TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study for the proposed 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- section 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 X X 10 - Draft EIR" and recommend that the City Council 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: 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 have been considered in the various decisions on this project. -33- MV CALL Motion All Ayes Motion n_1 December 18, 1980 MINUTES INDEX 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 demostrated in the document, together with the mitigation measures override the anticipated negative effects of the project. Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1060, RESOLUTION approving Amendment No. 554 and recommen3ing same N0. 1060 to the City Council for adoption with the findings listed below, which MOTION CARRIED: AMENDMENT NO. 554 FINDINGS: 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. That the contents of the environmental docu- ment has been considered in the decision of this portion of the project. 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 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- of December 18, 1980 m 4 Q. m MINUTES N 1 w 91 City of Newport Beach ject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works. Handicapped access 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. Condition No. 24 - To be worded as follows: 4 The existing coastal sage scrub in the northern portion of the project shall be maintained in a natural condition. Condition No.. 43 - This condition will remain as a part of the motion. Condition No. 57 - This added condition will be worded as follows: 57) That the existing fresh water marsh as called out in the EYR, 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 Ito impose the condition of the hold harmless agree' ment on both the tentative tract map and the use permit. Mr. Denniston 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. -35- I I INDEX COMMISSIONERSU December 18, 1980 MINUTES 92 TL" `J10 W w Amendment Amendment Revision Ayes X Noes X 4 m Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr. Denniston if he would object to the original wording of Con- dition No. 24. Mr. Denniston stated that they do not object to the original wording. 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 the 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..Demniston stated that it was his understandim that tVe 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 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. Revision to the amendment was made that the 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." 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 Condition No. 24 by Commissioner McLaughlin, as revised by Commissioner Balalis was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. -36- INDEX COMMISSIONERSQ noromhor 1R_ iQRn MINUTES W I M MI 1 City of New at Beach ROLL CALL INDEX nt X Amendment to the motion was made to delete Con- dition No. 43 from the requirements. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that the conditq,'on 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 developer to do so. Commissioner Balalis stated that he felt as though the facilities would not be utilized. Ayes Y X X X Amendment to the motion by Commissioner Balalis Noes X X X to delete Condition No. 43 was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion X Amendment to the motion was made to delete Con - Ayes X X X X dition No. 57 as proposed by Commissioner Thomas, Noes X N 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. Ayes X X XX X Motion by Commissioner Thomas as amended, was Noes X X 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. -37- J W December 18, 1980 Of MINUTES 3. That based on the information contained in the environmental document, the project 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 in consistent 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 the plan of subdivision. 6. That the proposed subdivision presents.no problems from a planning standpoint. 7. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development, :proposed. 8. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 9. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 10. That 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. -38- 0 CALL a December 18, 1980 MINUTES I Cit N ort Beach N YP 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 and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. 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. 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 maybe approximately modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. -39- 7A December 18, 1980 MINUTES of Newport Beach That all vehicular access rights to .San Joaquin Hills Road be released and relin- quished to the City. 8. That the final design of the on -site pede- strian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 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. 10. That the water capital improvement fees be paid. 11. 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. 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 standard 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- INDEX COMMISSIONERS1 December 18, 1980 It W � City of Newport Beach concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes and junction structure locations. 15. 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. 16. That the architectural character and land- scape design established within the exist- ing Big Canyon P -C District shall be main- tained. 17. A landscape and irrigati. -on 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). 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. 20. 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. 21. The landscape plan shall place heavy em- phasis on fire - retardant vegetation. 22. 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 INDEX of i 23. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 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. That a grading plan shall include a com- plete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to'minimize any 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. 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. 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- December 18, 1980 City of Newport Beach __._ - 9. ® e x a e n R __ ___ —- MINUTES 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. 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 the project will not increase erosion im- mediately downstream of the system, this shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Department. 33. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 34. Control of infiltration to the groundwater 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 into the final project unless otherwise modified by conditions of approval con- tained herein or the City's Grading Engineer. 36. A subdrain system shall be installed sub- ject to the approval of the Building Department. 37. That final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - 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- 0 INDEX s December 18, 1980 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 side of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive and Ford Road. 41. That the final design of on -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. 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 n w t December 18, 1980 of Newport Beach 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 access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 52. That all on site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Department. 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 C MMIONER51 December 18; °1980 MINUTES City of New t Beach ROLL CALL 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 of approval for Use Permit No. 1964. Motion X Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1964 Ayes X X X X X with the findings and conditions as follows, whit 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 the 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. -46- COMMISSIONERS December 18, 1980 MINUTES 2 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX • it 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: 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. -47-