Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/20/1983MMISSI0NERSI REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING XIX IX I Ix I All Present. x x x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: I I I I I I I I James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Acting City _Attorney * x x STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Senior Planner Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of January 6, 1983 Motion X Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the Planning Ayes X X X X X Commission Meeting of January 6, 1983, as written, Abstain X which MOTION CARRIED. x x x Planning Director Hewicker advised the Commission that the State of California, Department of Transportation has requested that the Caltrans West portion of Item No. 5 - General Plan Amendment 81 -2 and Item No. 6 - Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 1983. Motion X Motion was made to continue the Caltrans West portion All Ayes y X X X X X X of General Plan Amendment 81 -2 and Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. x x x -1- MINUTES INDEX PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. m DATE: January 20, 1983 m City of Newport Beach XIX IX I Ix I All Present. x x x EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: I I I I I I I I James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Acting City _Attorney * x x STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Senior Planner Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of January 6, 1983 Motion X Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the Planning Ayes X X X X X Commission Meeting of January 6, 1983, as written, Abstain X which MOTION CARRIED. x x x Planning Director Hewicker advised the Commission that the State of California, Department of Transportation has requested that the Caltrans West portion of Item No. 5 - General Plan Amendment 81 -2 and Item No. 6 - Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 1983. Motion X Motion was made to continue the Caltrans West portion All Ayes y X X X X X X of General Plan Amendment 81 -2 and Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. x x x -1- MINUTES INDEX MMiSSUNLKS MINUTES January.20, 1983 m £ m City of Newport Beach R O L L CALL I I I I Jill I INDEX Request to permit the construction of a restaurant Item #1 facility with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment in the Civic Plaza Planned Community. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a valet parking service. SITE LOCATION: All of Parcels No. 1 and 4 and a portion PLAN of Parcel No. 3 of Parcel Map No. REVIEW 175 -22, 23 and 24 (Resubdivision No. NO. 30 730), located on the northeasterly corner of Santa Barbara Drive and San Clemente Drive, in the Civic Plaza Planned Community. ZONE: P -C APPROVED APPLICANT: Lee & Sakahara Associates, AIA, Inc., .CONDI- Costa Mesa I TTM1hT.T.v • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Commissioner Allen stated that she has reviewed the previous Planning Commission minutes and staff report relating to this item. Mr. Robert Burnham, Acting City Attorney, stated that Commissioner Allen would therefore be entitled to participate and vote on this matter. Planning Director Hewicker presented background information on this request. He referred to Revised Exhibit "A" of the staff report, and suggested that Finding No. 5 be deleted, as reference to specific area plan objectives do not relate to this item. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Donald Yoshino, architect for the project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Yoshino stated that the revised conditions of approval for this project are acceptable. Mr. Steve Sandland, representing The Irvine Company, stated that they have met with representatives of the Newport Beach Board of Library. Trustees and the • Director of the Library, to discuss the proposed plan. -2- January 20, 1983 3 F a � m y City of Newport Beach Mr. Sandland explained the revisions to the proposed plan as follows: 1) A walkway has been added towards the self parking area; 2) The handicap parking spaces have been moved in closer proximity to the facility; 3) The valet parking drop off zone has been moved in further, which will allow the patrons to utilize the self parking area without any disruptions by the valet parking operation; and, 4) A six foot wide walkway has been added along the library parking area for the library patrons. He stated that they are also willing to designate the library staff parking area and number said spaces for the library staff. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Sandland stated that signs would be posted which would indicate "library parking only" and "library staff parking only" and the library staff parking spaces would be numbered. He stated that the numbered spaces would be designated by the Director of . the Library for the staff parking. Mr. Sandland stated that the library staff generally arrives to work before the opening hours of operation for the restaurant. Commissioner Balalis suggested that the access to the library staff parking lot be limited to only have access from one direction. Mr. Sandland stated that the vehicular access could be narrowed and signs could be posted for an exit only. Mr.- Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that this idea would be better than closing off the area completely. Planning Director Hewicker suggested that the parking lot be designed in such a manner so that the parking areas can be utilized even after the library has closed. Chairman King concurred. Planning Director Hewicker further stated that the library may have occasion to utilize the restaurant parking area during the hours when the restaurant is not in operation. Ms. Jean Hilchey, Chairman of the Board of Library Trustees for the City of Newport Beach, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Hilchey stated that they are concerned with making the entrance safe for the library patrons. She stated that many of the library patrons • are children and young adults who ride their bicycles to the library and must also utilize the driveway. -3- MINUTES INDEX January 20, 1983 � r c m � m w. City of Newport Beach Ms. Hilchey suggested that a raised two foot divider be installed in the driveway to Santa Barbara Drive which would separate the incoming and outgoing traffic, since the library patrons must share its entrance with a facility where alcoholic beverages will be served. Chairman King stated that the addition of a walkway along the berm next to the library will provide a protective walkway for the patrons of the library. Ms. Hilchey stated that they are in support of the proposed walkway, but the walkway will do nothing to ensure the safety of the library patrons at the driveway entrance. Mr. Webb referred to Condition of Approval No. 10 which relates to the location and configuration of the proposed driveway. Mr. Webb further stated that consideration shall be given to dividing the driveway entrance at the time the Public Works Department reviews and approves the final on -site parking and • circulation system design. Mr. Webb stated that in some instances a raised two foot barrier tends to distract motorists and block their view. He stated that some motorists are more concerned with maneuvering their automobile around such a barrier, rather than watching for other vehicles or pedestrians. Ms. Hilchey also requested that the delivery and service vehicles for the restaurant utilize the alternate driveway, rather than the main entrance driveway. Planning Director Hewicker stated that this would be desirable, but it would be very difficult to enforce. Chairman King stated that requiring the delivery vehicles to only utilize the rear entrance will congest the entrance for the many workers in Civic Plaza during the morning hours. Mr. Webb stated that the delivery vehicles will probably enter on one. driveway and exit on another, because there will not be sufficient room for a large truck to turn around in the service entrance. Mr. Webb added that this should not create a problem. Chairman King stated that if this becomes a problem, the issue can be re- addressed. • -4- MINUTES INDEX January 20, 1983 m � a m 63 City of Newport Beach Ms. Judith Clark, Library Director, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Clark described the various activities and meetings which occur at the library facility. She stated that between July and December of last year, 164 meetings took place in the library community room; averaging between 40 to 50 participants for the non - library groups, with a maximum of 75 participants. She stated that the library activities in the community room averaged between 10 to 25 participants, with a maximum of 75 participants. Ms. Clark stated that the Newport Center Branch Library currently employees 17 full time regular employees and 7 part time regular employees. She stated that the employees work on either the daytime or evening shift. She stated that a minimum of 24 parking spaces are needed for the library staff. Ms. Clark stated that they anticipate that the use of • the community room and the use of the library will greatly increase in the future. She stated that as the number of their patrons increase, additional parking will have to be specifically designated for the use of the library. Commissioner Balalis asked whose responsibility it is to provide the library with. ample parking spaces. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the library use is located within a Planned Community development, which provides 49 parking spaces to be set aside for the library use. He stated that the actual use of the parking lot includes cross easements, which provides that any .user of any of the buildings within Civic Plaza has the right to pass through one area of parking to another. He stated that there are no parking spaces within the Planned. Community which are set aside for. the exclusive use of one facility. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker. stated that at the time the Civic Plaza Planned Community was reviewed and approved, it was determined that the parking set aside for the library use would be adequate. He stated that the parking requirement utilized was 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 gross feet of floor area. He stated that the • gross floor area was not broken down into book storage, entryways, staff offices, or community room usage. -5- MINUTES INDEX • • � r � m = m a m 7K .n 0y > .City of a 9 0 m MINUTES January 20, 1983 Beach INDEX Commissioner Kurlander stated that The Irvine Company provides approximately 90 parking spaces for the library use, including the 49 parking spaces set aside in the Planned Community, Mr. Sandland stated that the Civic Plaza Planned Community utilizes a shared parking concept plan. He stated that during the hours of operation of the restaurant there will be approximately 90 parking spaces devoted for the use of the library. He stated that the Art Museum has approximately 87 designated parking spaces. He stated that 40 of these parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to the library. He stated that the Art Museum closes at 5:00 p.m., therefore making those spaces available to the library use. I ( I I I I In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Ms. Clark stated that the majority of the • non - library activities take place during the evening hours. whereas, she stated that most of the library related activities take place during the daytime hours. She stated that various groups such as volunteer organizations, college /university groups, recreational and educational groups utilize the library community room. She stated that most of the groups are non- profit organizations, which the library does not charge a fee for the use of the community room. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Ms. Clark stated that the majority of the community room meetings take place Monday through Friday. She stated that currently, the library is closed on Sunday. Ms. Aileen Schrader, Vice - Chairman of the Board of Library Trustees, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Schrader expressed their concern with the phasing plan for the construction of the parking lot and driveways which will take approximately six to eight weeks. She stated that during this construction period, the library parking will be greatly disrupted. She further expressed their concern with the safety of the library patrons when crossing over the excavation for the parking lot and driveways, and requested that the . construction be monitored for the safety of the library patrons. January 20, 1983 MINUTES m � a m n ' City of Newport Beach Mr. Webb referred to Condition of Approval No. 6 which provides for approval of the phasing plan by the Public Works Department. He also added that the condition states that said plan shall provide for minimum disruption to library patrons. He stated that the library patrons will be conveyed over the excavation by a temporary paved walkway which will be signed, delineated and barricaded. However, he stated that there is no way to totally avoid the inconvenience during the parking lot construction. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Webb stated that the restaurant parking lot will be constructed first, so that while the library parking is being modified, the library patrons will have a place to park. Commissioner Allen expressed her concern that during the construction process of the parking lots, there may • not be sufficient parking for the library use. Mr. Sandland stated that as many parking spaces as possible will be provided for the library use during the parking lot construction. He stated that they are also concerned with the disruption to the library patrons and stated that they will endeavor to construct the parking lots as rapidly as possible. Commissioner Goff asked what weeks during the year, the construction of the parking lots will take place. Mr. Sandland stated that they are hopeful of starting the construction of the parking lots within the next two months. He stated that they do not want the construction of the parking lots to extend into the summer months. Ms. Schrader stated that April is the month of their.annual book sale, when the most parking is needed. Commissioner Goff asked if the summer daytime use of the library is heavily utilized by children. Ms. Clark concurred and stated that the library has a summer reading program for the children during the day. Commissioner Goff concluded that the summer months would be the worse for any disruption to the parking areas. • IIIIII11 INDEX January 20, 1983 z m w City of Newport Beach Ms. Sarah Ramsey, President for the Friends of the Library, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Ramsey stated that her organization raises money for the library. She expressed her concern with the proposed parking plan and the safety of the children who utilize the library. Commissioner Kurlander stated that the Planning Commission is also concerned with the safety of the library patrons and the construction phasing plan. He stated that the Public Works Department has been alerted to the concerns expressed by the Commission members and will consider these concerns when reviewing and approving the construction phasing plan and the location and configuration of the proposed driveway. Motion I I IxI I I I I Motion was made to approve Site Plan Review No. 30, subject to the findings and conditions of Revised Exhibit "A ", with the deletion of Finding No. 5 as • recommended by staff. Amendment % Commissioner McLaughlin suggested an amendment to the motion for Conditions of Approval No. 6 and 10, which would allow for input from the library board, relating to the construction phasing plan and the location and configuration of the proposed driveway. Mr. Webb stated that this will be coordinated with the members of the library board and the Public Works Department. Acceptance X Commissioner Kurlander accepted this as an amendment to his motion. Commissioner Balalis asked if the library staff parking. lot should be limited to only have access from one direction, with the use of a one way marker. Planning Director Hewicker stated that Condition of Approval No. 4 could be amended to include further review of that portion of the parking lot adjoining the library by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Kurlander suggested that rather than amending Condition of Approval No. 4, that review and approval of that portion of the parking lot, be left to the discretion of the Public Works Department, keeping • in mind the concerns expressed by the Commission. Mr. Webb concurred. MINUTES INDEX MNYSS014ERS January 20, 1983 � x � m m m m ° a. City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLLCALLI III Jill I INDEX Commissioner Goff suggested an amendment to Condition No. 6, which would state that under no circumstances would disruptions to library patrons, due to the parking lot construction, be permitted between mid June and mid August. Chairman King stated that such an amendment may be counter productive. He stated.that if construction has begun prior to the summer, this would mean that the excavated site would have to remain exposed during the summer months, which may prove to be detrimental to the public. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he could not accept Commissioner Goff's suggested amendment. However, he stated that he would encourage the applicant to complete the construction of the parking lots prior to the summer months. • Commissioner Allen suggested that Condition No. 6 contain language which states that it is the Commission's intent that the phasing plan include or provide for construction of the parking lots before June 1st. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he would not want to add this language to Condition No. 6. He stated that the Public Works Department is aware of the Commission's concerns and intent on this issue. All Ayes S X X X X X X Commissioner Kurlander's motion for approval of Site Plan Review No. 30, amended as follows: Conditions No. 6 and 10 to include language which would allow for input from the library board, relating to the construction phasing plan and the location and configuration of the proposed driveway; and, deletion of Finding No. 5, was now voted on as follows, which AMENDED MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2 Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular • I circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. cm January 20, 1983 � r c m � m City of Newport Beach MINUTES R O L L CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX 7 3. The proposed development is a high - quality proposal and will not adversely affect the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. 4. The proposed development does not adversely affect the public benefits derived from the expenditures of public funds for improvement and beautification of street and public facilities within the area. 5. That the development will not result in a significant environmental impact. 6. The proposed number of compact car spaces constitutes only 16 percent of the parking requirements where the Civic Plaza Planned Community Development Standards provide that 30 percent of the required parking may be established as compact parking stalls if approved by the • Planning Commission. 7. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 8. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,.comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification for the tandem parking spaces with valet service is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. CONDITIONS! 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. • 2.. That a minimum of one parking space for each 40 sq.ft. of "net public area" shall be provided for both the restaurant and bar. -10- January 20, 1983 3 � r c ro � m m m w City of Newport Beach 3. That valet parking shall be provided during all hours of operation of the proposed restaurant and bar. 4. That the final on -site parking and circulation system, including the operation of the valet service shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director. The parking spaces which are most convenient and most accessible to the restaurant entrance shall be distributed in such a way that there are an adequate number of spaces available for patrons who do not wish to use the valet service. The valet parking service shall not restrict or otherwise preclude the use of the independently accessible spaces by patrons wishing to park their own car. The valet parking service shall use the tandem parking stalls first. When those are filled the spaces more remote from the • restaurant entrance may be filled next. On- street parking is prohibited. 5. All employees shall be required to use the lower driveway and entrance and park on -site in spaces farthest from the restaurant entrance. 6. That a phasing plan for the construction of the parking lot and driveways shall be approved by the Public Works Department with input from the library board, prior to the issuance of any building permits. Said plan shall provide for minimum disruption to library patrons. 7. That all construction traffic shall be required to use the lower driveway. 8. That the on -site pedestrian system be subject to further review and approval of the Public Works Department. 9. That a sidewalk be constructed adjacent to the parking lot on the west side of the library. Said sidewalk shall be of sufficient width to provide a minimum of 4 feet between the car bumpers and back of sidewalk. -11- MINUTES INDEX January 20, 1983 � z �.� m m m 0 0 w. City of Newport Beach MINUTES - ROLLCAL11 111 1111 INDEX 10. That the location and configuration of the proposed driveway on San Clemente Drive shall be subject to further review and approval of the Public Works Department and input from the library board. Consideration shall be given to dividing the driveway entrance. 11. That the existing drive apron and island on San Clemente Drive shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement. 12. That the Planning Director shall approve a directional signing program designed to differentiate between parking areas designated for the use of library patrons and the subject restaurant. 13. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department • 14. That a standard site plan agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 15. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provision of the Uniform Plumbing Code. - 16. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining streets and buildings. 17. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control odors and smoke in accordance with Rule 50 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. - 18. That a washout area for the restaurant trash containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or the storm drains. • -12- 1 January 20, 1983 f m E m A City of Newport Beach 19. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance . with the approved plan. 20. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, and the approval of the Planning Department. 21. That the plans for landscaping the area adjacent to San Clemente Drive shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public works Department. • I I 1 122 The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. • 23. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought- resistant native vegetation, and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. 24. That live entertainment shall be restricted to individuals or , small groups. The use of percussion or amplified instruments is prohibited. 25. That live entertainment shall be restricted to the hours between 8:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., Monday through Thursday; and the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., Friday through Sunday. No dancing shall be permitted unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. -13- MINUTES INDEX C U WVT)!) �K�l MINUTES January 20, 1983 i � c ° N City of Newport Beach c sm qo °_g ROLL CALL INDEX Request to establish a restaurant facility with on -sale Item #2 alcoholic beverages and live entertainment in the C -1 District. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces on -site in conjunction with a valet parking service. The proposal also requests the acceptance of an offsite parking agreement for a portion of the required parking spaces on property located at 702 -704 USE PERMIT Fernleaf Avenue in the R -2 District. Parking NO. 3.015 attendants will be provided to park automobiles of restaurant patrons on the on -site and off -site parking lots. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block N, Tract No. 323, located at 2800 East Coast Highway, on the northeasterly corner of East Coast DENIED Highway and Goldenrod Avenue, in Corona del Mar. • I I I I I I I APPLICANTS: Costa Mesa and Bill Greggs, OWNER: Ernest George, Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Zachary Sham, architect for the project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Sham stated that they are proposing a French restaurant to operate at this location. He stated that the building has been vacant for over one year which is located in downtown Corona del Mar. He stated that a restaurant use would generate less traffic' than other uses which. could utilize the building, such as a bank operation which would not even require a use permit. He stated that they are proposing the use of a valet operation which will utilize an off -site parking lot on Fernleaf Avenue. Mr. Sham stated that they realize the conflicts which are associated with existing C -1 zoned properties located adjacent to existing R -2 zoned properties. He . stated that they are willing to resolve these problems which will benefit both the community and the applicant. -14- January 20, 1983 m City of Newport Beach MINUTES R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX Mr. Chriss Street, resident of 691 Heliotrope Avenue, and member of the Community Congregational Church, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Street expressed his concern that the proposed restaurant will be located only 43 feet from an existing church use and will not be consistent with the existing neighborhood. He recommended that the applicants for the proposed restaurant meet with the members of the church to discuss their proposal. Mr. Mike Issacs, representing Realonomics Corporation, which manages property located at 2816 East Coast Highway, appeared before the Commission. He stated that they are strongly opposed to the proposed restaurant use because of the traffic and parking congestion which it will create. He also expressed his concern with the location of the off -site parking lot and the absence of an adequate trash removal plan. • Mr. John Boyd, representing the owner of property located at 612 Goldenrod Avenue, stated their opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Boyd stated that the traffic and parking problems which this proposal will generate have not been adequately answered. Mr. Warner Bordier, property owner of 63.1. and 701 Goldenrod Avenue, stated his opposition to the proposed request. Mr. Bordier expressed his concern with the safety factors of the parking area and the use of the alley. He stated that the alley at this location has a blind corner which leads onto a very narrow street. He also expressed his concern with the traffic signal at Goldenrod Avenue which he stated is very confusing. He stated that even persons who live in the area are still confused by this traffic signal. Mr. Keith Dawson, resident of 721 Goldenrod Avenue, stated his opposition to the proposed request. He expressed his concern with the proposed valet operation and stated persons who do not wish to utilize the valet parking will park their cars on the street. He stated • that there is currently not enough parking spaces on the street to handle the residents of the area. -15- January 20, 1983 m m y City of New Beach Mr. Andrew Cyga, resident of 614 Goldenrod, stated his opposition to the proposed request. He asked how the valet parking requirement will be enforced, in particular, during the summer months, when the parking situation in Corona del Mar is at a premium. He further asked how the delivery trucks for the restaurant will make their deliveries and turn around in the small parking lot and where the trash refuse from the proposed use will be situated. Mr. Richard Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, distributed to the Commission his letter dated January 20, 1983, outlining their objections to the proposed request, which included concerns relating to increased traffic, parking problems, close proximity to a residential area, and objections to the proposed entertainment and lounge. Mr. Nichols further stated that the delivery trucks will not be able to make a right turn into the alley for access into the parking lot. Mrs. Peggy Hillis, resident of 704 Goldenrod Avenue, and spokesperson for approximately 15 other residents of the area, stated their opposition to the proposed request. Mrs. Hillis expressed their concern that children must travel this street to attend school. She stated that the street is already congested with traffic and parking problems. She stated that the existing building was over -built for the area when it was originally constructed and that the underground parking area floods when it rains. She requested that the existing building be utilized for the purpose for which it was originally intended, that of office space. Mr. Larry Weichman, real estate broker involved in the proposed transaction, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Weichman stated that a portion of the restaurant would be closed during the morning and afternoon hours and only the on -site parking would be utilized. Therefore, he stated that the proposed restaurant use would not generate as much traffic or parking congestion during the day as a bank or office use. He stated that the off -site parking lot would only be utilized after 6:00 p.m. • -16- MINUTES INDEX January 20, 1983 m � m 3 m m w. City of Newport Beach Mr. Weichman stated that the blind corner which was mentioned earlier, is an inherent problem with the building and would be a problem for any business utilizing the building. He stated that it is possible for delivery trucks to park on the property and that proper scheduling of same will eliminate any congestion problems. He further stated that there is room underneath the building for the dumpsters to be located. Chairman King stated that off -site parking would not required for the building if it were to be utilized as intended, that of office space. Therefore, he stated that the blind corner becomes a greater issue when the use of an off -site parking lot is proposed for the restaurant use. He further stated that a sizeable delivery truck parked on the site would block a portion of the public sidewalk. • In response to a question posed by Mr. Weichman, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the building was originally constructed for use as an office building. He stated that an office use at this location would not be required to obtain a use permit from the Planning Commission. Mr. Weichman stated that the typical high rents in the Corona del Mar area require that a business must generate sufficient income to afford the rent of the building. He stated that typical rents in the area range from $1.25 to $2.50 per square foot. Therefore, he stated that a high income producing business, such as the proposed restaurant, would be ideal for this location. Chairman King referred to the proposed limited lunch hour of the restaurant and asked where the employees of the restaurant will be parking during the day. He further stated that parking on the adjacent street is restricted two times during week due to the street sweeping operation. Mr. Weichman stated that only a portion of the restaurant will be open during the morning and afternoon hours in order to conform with the City's parking requirements • IIIIIIII 1 -17- MINUTES INDEX • STRAW VOTE Ayes Noes rnNV�� January 20, 1983 MINUTES m. 3 City of Newport Beach Chairman King stated that existing businesses in the area utilize the adjacent streets for parking. He stated that proposed projects in this area must begin to accommodate all of their patrons as well as their employee parking requirements. Mr. Weichman suggested that the item be continued so that the applicant can work with the City in resolving the concerns which have been addressed. He further stated that the in order to cover the overhead of the building, it is necessary for the restaurant to be open during the day. Commissioner Balalis stated that the residents of the area are opposed to more cars parking on the residential streets, therefore he suggested that perhaps the parking lot immediately across the street on Goldenrod Avenue could be utilized as an off -site parking area. He suggested that the applicant explore this possibility. Commissioner Balalis stated that the hours of operation are also a concern of the residents who live immediately adjacent to the proposed restaurant. He further stated that the issue of the delivery trucks and scheduling of same must be resolved. Commissioner McLaughlin suggested that a straw vote be taken on this item. She stated that she could not vote in favor of such a project when considering the elementary school children who must travel this area and the proposal for a bar area. Commissioner Kurlander concurred with Commissioner McLaughlin. He stated that the proposed valet parking and the stacking of the vehicles and the pick -up of the vehicles will create a tremendous problem. He further stated that it would be impossible to make adequate deliveries to the proposed restaurant because of the narrow street and alley and small parking area. xllII Straw vote was taken to determine if there was X sufficient support of this item from the Commission and R g g its continuance, so that the applicant can further address the concerns which have been expressed, which STRAW VOTE FAILED. 5Y.2 INDEX January 20, 1983 c m m y City of Newport Beach Chairman King stated that when considering that the building has been vacant for over one year, the owner of the building should consider reducing the rent or percentage of profit so that the building can be utilized for the purpose which it was intended, that of office space. Motion X Motion was made for denial of Use Permit No. 3015, All, Ayes X X X X X subject to the following findings, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the establishment of a restaurant on the subject property represents a use of greater intensity than the office use originally planned for the subject building without the benefit of adequate off - street parking. • 2. That the proposed restaurant will generate more traffic than a typical office use for which the building was originally designed. 3. That the use of valet service is unacceptable, inasmuch as there is inadequate space on the subject property for the safe pickup and delivery of vehicles on the site. 4. That the location of the proposed off -site parking area, will result in an increase of commercial traffic in a residential area during late night and early morning hours. 5. That the use of off -site parking in this particular case will create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 6. That approval of Use Permit No. 3015 will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the • neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.. x a -19- MINUTES INDEX �urnmt »� MINUTES January 20, 1983 � r c m � m m > X 0 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX The Planning Commission recessed at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Request to construct a two unit residential condominium complex and related off - street parking spaces in the R -4 District. AND Request to create one parcel of land for residential condominium purposes where portions of two lots now exist. • LOCATION: Portions of Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, Balboa Tract, located at 408 East Ocean Front, on the northerly side of East AND Ocean Front between Adams Street and Coronado Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R -4 Item #4 APPLICANT: Oceanfront Views, Redlands OWNER: Mamie C. Bradford Trust, Woodland Hills Agenda Items No. 3 and 4 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Denise Cherry, architect for the project, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of these items. In response to a question posed by Planning Director Hewicker, Mr. Cherry stated that the bedroom on the garage level is independently accessible from the • garage area, as well as the other unit. -20- RESUB- DIVISION NO. 738 BOTH APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals • and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available. for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations. 2. That one tandem parking space and one accessible parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. • 3. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 738 be fulfilled. -21- MINUTES INDEX January 20, 1983 c O aCO 3 A G) 9 D City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL Motion X Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3016, Ayes X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, which Noes 'X X MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals • and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available. for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations. 2. That one tandem parking space and one accessible parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. • 3. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 738 be fulfilled. -21- MINUTES INDEX January 20, 1983 f m m m m City of Newport Beach Motion X Motion was made for approval of Resubdivision No. 738, Ayes X X X X subject to the following findings and conditions, which Noes X MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. I I I I I I I 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through • 11 1 1 1 1 1 or use of, property within the .proposed subdivision. 1] CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each unit be served with individual water services and sewer laterals unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That the proposed drive be paved to join the existing concrete alley prior to finaling the building permit. r t -22- MINUTES INDEX t_Uf"/V n"NtK3 MINUTES January 20, 1983 i x ZE m E m w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I IINM General Plan Amendment 81 -2 (Public Hearinq) Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. CALTRANS WEST LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast NO. 81 Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space - AND ZONE: - O -S (Open Space) District - • PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation AMENDM TO THE FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS - LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between. 5th Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B:, Northerly of 5th Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between 5th Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational ALL and.Environmehtal Open Space. - CONTINUED TO FEBRU- ZONE: R -1 -B (Single Family with B combining) ARY 10, District - - - 1983 PROPONENT: The Irvine Company • 11111111 -23 • Lvr ^^ MINUTES January 20, 1983 � x m � m w City of Newport Beach INDEX BIG CANYON AREA 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly. of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings CAMPUS DRIVE LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive /Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial, .and Retail and Service Commercial. ZONE: M -1 -A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C -1 (Commercial) District. PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach -24- MNUSSIC)NtKS MINUTES January 20, 1983 � c m m N T City of Newport Beach INDEX M Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans west site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned) LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of • Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Chairman King opened the public hearing and testimony was taken on the following items: CALTRANS WEST CALTRANS WEST Planning Director Hewicker advised the Commission that the State of California, Department of Transportation has requested that the Caltrans West portion of Item No. 5 .- General Plan Amendment 81 -2 and Item No. 6 - Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 1983. Motion X Motion was made to continue the Caltrans West portion All Ayes X X X X X of General Plan Amendment 81 -2 and Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. • IIIIIIII -25- January 20, 1983 x MINUTES � c m � m m m City of Newport Beach FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS INDEX Mr. Ronald Kennedy appeared before the Commission.and stated that the staff report indicates that there are no neighborhood or view parks shown on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. However, he referred to an exhibit in the General Plan Amendment document and stated that a neighborhood park is indicated in Area A. He further stated that the Open Space Element designates all of Area A as a neighborhood park. Actually, he stated that the area is not a neighborhood park, but is shown as a greenbelt. He stated that perhaps this is a portion of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt. Mr. Kennedy referred to Area A and stated that in visiting the site, he noticed that there was a great amount of fill on the site. He stated that the use of this fill has changed the topography of the land and questioned as to whether geotechnical work -ups or permits were issued prior to the fill being placed on • the site. He further questioned if this would be considered a buildable site, or if any view planes would be affected because of the use of the fill. In response to a question posed by Mr. Kennedy, Planning Director Hewicker stated that there is an inconsistency between the various elements of the General Plan and how the property is designated on each of the elements. He stated that the last action taken by the City was to designate the property as low density residential at four dwelling units per acre. He stated that this was accomplished in General Plan Amendment No. 79 -1. In response to a question posed by Mr. Kennedy, Chairman King stated that the fill which occurs on the top portion of the site would be redistributed on the site to allow for construction without view plane blockage. Mr. Kennedy questioned where the real terrain in this area begins and where the fill area begins. In response to a question posed by Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, stated that the neighborhood park designation was not deleted under General Plan Amendment No. 79 -1 for the Fifth • Avenue parcel. Chairman King suggested that the staff provide this information in the form of a map for the next hearing. -26- I I January 20, 1983 MINUTES City of Newport Beach INDEX Mr. Kennedy questioned if there is a proper amount of park dedication being provided. He also expressed his concerns with the lot size of the parcels and the boundaries of the Harbor View area. Dr. Brenda Ross, Chairman for the Long Range Planning Commission for Oasis, appeared before the Commission. Dr. Ross stated that they are desirous of expanding the scope of Oasis to include a geriatric health education and daycare center. She stated that they are currently in the process of raising money for a study to determine the actual need. However, she stated that if all of the land around the Oasis area is developed with housing, there will be no space for Oasis to expand in the future. Dr. Ross stated that there are currently 2,700 active members in Oasis, with a potential of 15,000 members in the area of Newport Beach. She stated that programs • for Oasis are expanding rapidly, including a lecture series. She requested that this item be scheduled first on the agenda at the next meeting so that the members of Oasis could address the Commission on this issue and express their concerns. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Dr. Ross stated that ideally, they would like to expand the facility on the same side of the street as the current facility. However, she stated that they would be willing to consider expansion across the street or in the Corona del Mar area. Mr. Edward. Ashley, representing the Jasmine Creek Community Association and resident of 110 Jasmine Creek Drive, appeared before the Commission. He expressed their concerns with the protection of the views, particularly those residences which are located directly across Harbor View Drive. He requested that the views be protected and preserved in this area. Planning Director Hewicker stated that concerns with view protection can be addressed in the General Plan Amendment. He stated that The Irvine Company has prepared exhibits and is prepared to discuss their • conceptual plans for the development of the property, which may alleviate the concerns relating to view protection. However, he stated that potential view impacts are impossible to define at this level of planning. -27- January 20, 1983 � x m C m m City of Newport Beach Mr. Lloyd Crausy, President of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. He expressed their concern with the protection and preservation of views over Parcels A and B. He further stated that the maintenance of sensitive habitats should not take precedence over the preservation of views, but rather that both should be given equal protection. Mr. Larry Wesoff, member of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. He stated that he has received many telephone calls from persons who.are concerned with the view protection from Sandcastle Drive. He stated that if the dedicated parks remain, the view would be protected. He stated that the persons residing in the Harbor View Hills area are willing to work with The Irvine Company in attempting to resolve these concerns • and protect their views. Mr. Richard Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols stated that the ownership of Parcel A is not clear and that the dedication of a greenbelt is also not clear. He stated that this particular piece of property has not been taken care of by either the City or The Irvine Company. He requested that the legal status of the property be determined before the area is rezoned. Mr. Nichols referred to Parcel B and stated that the EIR indicates the parks for Corona del Mar as Grant Howald Park and Lawn Bowling Park. He stated that the Lawn Bowling Park is not accessible and that it is not big enough. He stated that because of ownership problems, the youth center in Grant Howald Park can riot be repaired. He expressed his concern that if the school were to sell its interest in the Grant Howald Park, it is possible that Corona del Mar would have no parks to serve its residents. He further stated that the Oasis facility should be given every opportunity to • expand its use. -28- MINUTES INDEX January 20, 1983 3 X F r c w � m City of Newport Beach Mr. Nichols referred to Parcel C and stated that this is undeveloped, heavily sloped land. He stated that considerable funds will be needed to maintain this parcel. He stated that they do not mind this parcel being undeveloped, but suggested that The Irvine Company maintain the parcel. Mr. Nichols stated that The Irvine Company has indicated the need for a road, namely Canyon Crest Road. He stated that such a road would definitely bypass the traffic of Coast Highway and be a benefit to the local traffic. Mr. Nichols stated that the association is not prepared to make a decision as yet on the proposed plans of The Irvine Company, however, he stated that the plans have been well thought out. He emphasized that park land is • needed in the area, rather than more in -lieu park fees. He stated that there are also no soccer or ball fields which are located on Parks, Beaches and Recreation property adjacent to Corona del Mar. He suggested that perhaps filling in the Jasmine Creek area may be a possibility. Commissioner Allen stated that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission is launching a study of the City's Open Space Element. She stated that as a part of this study, they will probably be discussing park land dedication versus in -lieu park fees. She suggested that the interested residents from Corona del Mar should participate in this study. Commissioner McLaughlin asked if The Irvine Company is proposing the development of Canyon Crest.Road. Mr. Bernard Maniscalco, representing The Irvine Company, stated that The Irvine Company is not proposing the development of Canyon Crest Road. He stated that Canyon Crest Road was taken off of the transportation plan by both the City and the County, because it was felt that Pelican Hills Road would be a better bypass. • IIIIII11 -29- MINUTES INDEX January 20, 1983 3 � _ m = m m m City of Newport Beach Mr. Ron Fowler, resident of 408 Mendoza Terrace, appeared before the Commission and expressed his concern with the sensitive wild life area in and around Buck Gully. He requested that only the upper portion of Buck Gully be considered for development and that the lower portion be protected. BIG CANYON AREA 16 No comments were received regarding this item. NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 Mr. Frank Rhodes, resident of 1417 East Bay and representing Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc., • appeared before the Commission. Mr. Rhodes presented a rendering of the project which depicted the proposed seven - story, 80,000 square foot medical office building and the existing surrounding uses. He also discussed the parking proposal and stated that the traffic which the use will be generating, will be spread out throughout the day. Chairman King stated that the patron traffic may be spread out during the day, but that the staff and doctors will be generating traffic during the peak hours. Mr. Rhodes stated that in comparison with the floor area, the staff of a medical office use is significantly smaller than that of a general office use and therefore, will be creating less_ peak hour traffic. He stated that the traffic which is created by a medical office use is that of the patients who are coming and going during the day. Mr. Richard Nichols, resident of 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Commission and - stated that he is not taking a position on the proposed project. Mr. Nichols expressed his concern that specific proposals are now being considered which will increase the density in Newport Center. He stated that either all of Newport Center should be specifically zoned, or it should be handled as a Planned Community, including traffic concerns for the entire Newport Center. -30- MINUTES INDEX BIG CANYON AREA 16 NEWPORT. CENTER - BLOCK 400 January 20, 1983 f m S w m 5 City of Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker stated that the property is not zoned as a Planned Community, it is zoned C-0-H, which is a Commercial District. He stated that this particular proposal was presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council under General Plan Amendment No. 80 -3, which also included The Irvine Company and the Marriott Hotel proposals. He stated that at that time, Mr. Rhodes indicated that in his lease and financial arrangements with The Irvine Company, he was paying for development rights in Block 400 which were apparently not recognized by the City when General Plan Amendments 78 -2 and 79 -1 were being processed. Therefore, he stated that Mr. Rhodes was instructed by the City to bring the proposal back at a subsequent date and make his presentation on an individual basis. Commissioner Balalis stated that until General Plan Amendment 80 -3, he was not aware that any development . rights existed in Block 400 which were not counted in • the overall square footage for Newport Center. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the purpose of the amendment is to restore the rights of Mr. Rhodes to build 80,000 square feet of office development in Block 400, not to give The Irvine Company an additional 80,000 square feet. He stated that unless the 80,000 square feet of office development is taken out from some other place in Newport Center, the office development square footage in Newport Center will increase. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker stated that he is not aware of any documentation which indicates the development rights of Mr. Rhodes and his agreement with The Irvine Company. Commissioner Balalis asked if The Irvine Company was aware that Mr. Rhodes had these development rights. Mr. Rhodes stated that at the time The Irvine Company was 'processing General Plan Amendment 80 -3, he was advised that he was considered as a separate property owner and that only the property which The Irvine Company had control of in Newport Center was being processed. He stated that because, he had a long term • lease with The Irvine Company, he was advised to process his proposal separately. -31- MINUTES INDEX January 20, 1983 X m w. City of Newport Beach Mr. Rhodes stated that the City was advised of these facts in the beginning of General Plan Amendment 80 -3. He stated that this proposal was not processed at that time, because the environmental documentation would have delayed General Plan Amendment 80 -3. However, he stated that this proposal was recognized by the City Council in the processing of General Plan Amendment 80 -3 and that there were development rights to this property. He stated that they have the earliest development rights in Newport Center which date back to 1966. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Rhodes stated that he has recorded leases with The Irvine Company which document these property rights. Commissioner Balalis stated that when the original square footage limitations were placed on Block 400, • this 80,000 square feet should have been included as allowable square footage. He asked what is the permitted development in Block 400, under the existing General Plan. Mr. Rhodes stated that at the time they entered into the contractural agreements with The Irvine Company for this property, the square footage was included. He stated that subsequent to that time, through General Plan Amendments 78 -2 and 79 -1, this square footage was taken away, .without his knowledge. He stated that he had relied upon The Irvine Company to protect his development rights. Planning Director Hewicker stated that when the City Council initiated the reduction of square footage in Newport Center under General Plan Amendments 78 -2 and 79 -1, figures were developed as to the existing square footage and what was permitted. He stated that since there were already four buildings fully developed and a parking lot, it was determined that a zero amount of development would be permitted in the future. He stated that currently, there are 353,600 square feet of medical and general office uses existing in Block 400. • I I ( ( I I I I Mr._ Rhodes reiterated that he was never notified or made aware that the square footage for his development had been taken away by the previous General Plan Amendment actions. -32- MINUTES- INDEX 1 January 20, 1983 g � m City of Newport Beach CAMPUS DRIVE Mr. David Neish, representing MacArthur Associates, appeared before the Commission and requested that their particular parcel be removed from the Campus Drive area of the General Plan Amendment. He stated that they are currently embarking upon a planning program which will call for the redevelopment of the subject property, in which several mixed land use alternatives will be explored. Therefore, he requested that a decision on this particular parcel be delayed, until they can submit a specific site plan review within the next six to, eight months. He stated that a site plan review will provide the type of analysis in which the request can be judged upon the merits of the proposal. Mr. Neish stated that the existing zoning in the area allows for a 3.0 floor area ratio, as opposed to the 0.5 floor area ratio which is being proposed by staff. . He stated that they would not propose a project at the existing 3.0 floor area ratio, however, he stated that the proposal would be greater than the proposed 0.5 floor area ratio. He stated that they are willing to commit the project to a site plan review by the Planning Commission. He stated that under the present zoning standards, they would not necessarily have to do this. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the current floor area ratio in this particular area is at .34 times the buildable area. Planning Director Hewicker stated that staff has proposed a 0.5 floor area ratio, but that the Planning Commission can adopt a higher or lower figure. Mr. Neish stated that the proposed 0.5 floor area ratio is not acceptable. He also stated that development of the area at the existing 3.0 floor area ratio would definitely create problems for the area. He stated that the Koll and Emkay parcels were developed at floor area ratios in the range of .35, but are parcels which are owned by one entity and were developed when the parcels were vacant. He stated that the property in • question is mainly leasehold land and has already been developed, therefore making the proposed 0.5 floor area ratio unacceptable. -33- MINUTES INDEX CAMPUS DRIVE January 20, 1983 F � � c m � m City of Newport Beach c s a p Mr. Neish stated, that from a marketing standpoint, the proposed 0.5 floor area ratio will discourage a lessee or landowner from acquiring additional parcels which may be located adjacent to their uses. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Neish stated that the parcel in question contains approximately 3.1 acres of land and is located at the southwesterly intersection of MacArthur Avenue and Birch Street. Mr. Dave Montano, representing Air Cal, located at 3636 Birch Street, appeared before the Commission. He stated that the proposed floor area ratio will restrict future development in the area. Chairman King stated that the new facility for Air Cal which would be located on the east side of Birch Street is outside of the zone which is being considered under the General Plan Amendment and that the original Air Cal facility • is located within the area which is being considered. Mr. Steven Strauss, Vice - President of Pacesetter Homes, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Strauss described the parcels which they own or lease that will be affected by the proposed General Plan Amendment. Be stated that the conditions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance would make it impossible to construct a building in this area at the current maximum of 3.0 floor area ratio. Further, he stated that Campus Drive has height restrictions for a navigation easement which are imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration. He stated that the land in this area is held by small property owners, many. of which have leases with The Irvine Company. Therefore, Mr. Strauss stated that there is no .rush to act upon the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Strauss stated that a low buildable area restriction will discourage people from the long -term, financial commitment of combining lots and upgrading the properties. He suggested that the Commission impose a maximum area restriction with moderate zoning which gives control over setbacks, building sizes, traffic generation, and so on. He stated that the • applicant can then attempt. to mitigate the problems which may be encountered. He stated that the proposed 0.5 floor area ratio will discourage people from upgrading their properties. -34- MINUTES 0910 January 20, 1993 MINUTES �X r m d ' City of Newport Beach INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Strauss stated that a 0.5 floor area ratio will become 0:3 or 0.2, after the setbacks and other restrictions have been applied. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the floor area ratio reduction is approved in the General Plan Amendment, the zoning district on the property will be amended to impose the same type of floor area ratio. Mr. Strauss stated that with proper zoning procedures and site plan approval, a project at 1.5 times the buildable area may be appropriate for this area. Otherwise, he stated that redevelopment, which is needed to upgrade the area, will not occur. I I ( I I ( In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Strauss stated that they currently have the • approval for a 53,000 square foot building on a 116,000 square foot parcel, which is below the floor area ratio of 0.5. Mr. Strauss stated that their concern is not with this project, but with future projects in the area. He expressed his concern that the declining industrial areas of the City need to be redeveloped with higher and better uses. Mr. Robert Burnham, Acting City Attorney, stated that an environmental document must address the worse case situation and maximum build out which would be permitted. He stated that to the extent that the proposal is increased above the 0.5 floor area ratio, the additional impacts must be addressed in the environmental document. Planning Director Hewicker stated that in reality, the likelihood of the worse case situation ever occurring, is almost non - existent. Mr. Don Lewis of 4301 Birch Street, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Lewis stated that imposing the proposed restriction is unfair and is not practical. He stated that there are already many zoning restrictions which are imposed on projects, and one more restriction is not needed. He stated that it is • most unlikely that any of the properties could be built with the maximum 3.0 floor area ratio. -35- ROLL CALL January 20, 1983 � S m m City of Newport Beach Chairman King requested that staff take an inventory of the number of developments in the area of Campus Drive which have been upgraded or remodeled. For example, the Koll Development Building and the building on the corner of Birch Street and Bristol Street. Commissioner Winburn referred to the Fifth Avenue Parcels and requested that information be provided as to the status of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission review of the Recreational /Open Space Element. Commissioner Balalis referred to the Fifth Avenue Parcels and requested that the ownership of Parcel A be clarified. Chairman King referred to the Fifth Avenue Parcels and requested the most recent, approved map of the location of the greenbelts and open space in this area. • Commissioner Balalis referred to Newport Center - Block 400 and requested clarification of the 80,000 square foot issue. Mr. Burnham referred to the Campus Drive item and stated that the City Attorney's Office will prepare a legal opinion as to the request by Mr. Neish to exempt one particular parcel of this item. Mr. Neish suggested that perhaps the Commission could defer comment on this parcel for six to eight months, rather than exempting the parcel from the item. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Burnham stated that it is not possible to defer one item from consideration, because the environmental document must be processed as one document. Mr. Ronald Kennedy stated that for a variance, it is required that persons residing within 300 feet of the application must be notified. He questioned why persons are not notified of general plan amendment hearings. Planning Director Hewicker stated that notices for all general plan amendment hearings are advertised in the newspaper. He further stated that the community and homeowners associations are notified, • as well as all persons who have expressed an interest in the item. -36- MINUTES INDEX rt c m m Q m 7C G N D �za�o -m January 20, 1983 MINUTES of Newport Beach INDEX Motion X j I I Motion was made to continue General Plan Amendment 81 -2 All Ayes X X X X and Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 1983, so that the staff can compile the requested information. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Newport Center Sight Plane. Planning Director Hewicker referred to the staff report which was prepared on this item and presented background information. • Mr. Clark Hayes, resident of 1106 Goldenrod Avenue and member of the Harbor View Hills Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Hayes stated that since the passage of the Sight Plane Ordinance in 1973, the Association has had various discussions with The . Irvine Company on this issue. He stated that on one. occasion, the board members of the Association reviewed with The Irvine Company, the planting of trees on Newport Center Drive. He stated that this was done to ensure that there would be no infringement upon the sight plane. Mr. Hayes stated that. during the processing of the General Plan Amendment for Civic Plaza *and Corporate Plaza, the overall sight plane was lost and only the sight plane for Corporate Plaza was covered. He stated that the full sight plane was included by the City Council in the passage of General Plan Amendment 80 -3. However, he stated that General Plan Amendment 80 -3 was removed by the referendum. Therefore, Mr. Hayes requested that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to include the full sight plane as originally intended. I I I I j Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, Istated that it would be inappropriate at this time to institute any change in the zoning on this property. -37- January 20, 1983 $ m 5 w m City of Newport Beach Mr. Dmohowski requested that consideration of this item be postponed until such time as development plans for the property can be made available for the Planning Commission's review. Commissioner Allen suggested that this item be scheduled for a public hearing so that the sight plane issue can be heard. Commissioner Balalis stated that the sight plane issue was discussed in General Plan Amendment 80 -3. He stated that at that time, The Irvine Company had basically agreed to the sight plane. Mr. Dmohowski stated that they are requesting that this item be postponed until such time as development plans for the property can be made available. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Dmohowski if they are requesting that the sight plane be established at the • time of any development in the area or for those developments in which the sight plane would be affected. Commissioner Balalis stated that obviously, the sight plane should be established before the first development occurs. Mr. Dmohowski stated that upon the submission of development plans, the height issue will have to be determined. He stated that it is inevitable that there will be height restrictions to protect the view plane. Commissioner Goff asked Mr. Dmohowski if it would be to his advantage to know the sight plane restrictions on development,in the area before the development plans are submitted. Mr. Dmohowski stated that they understand now what the affects of the sight plane would be on their properties. However, he stated that they are objecting to a further encumbrance in terms of zoning regulations on these properties. Commissioner McLaughlin asked staff if the Planning Commission will have the ability to impose sight plane restrictions on any development. Planning Director Hewicker stated that all of the properties in question are zoned Planned Community and would require • discretionary review by the Planning Commission and City Council. :ID MINUTES INDEX ROLL CALL January 20, 1983 � � c m m m m =20 City of Newport Beach Commissioner Balalis requested information from the staff relating to what is being accomplished when a sight plane is established on a piece of property that can not be developed without further discretionary review by the City. Furthermore, Commissioner Balalis requested information regarding whether the establishment of height limitations would determine the number of floors that could be developed on a site. Motion X Motion was made to set for public hearing on February Ayes JxJX X X X 24, 1983, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating Noes to the Newport Center Sight Plane, which MOTION CARRIED. Is x x x I I I I I There being no further business, the Planning 1 Commission adjourned at 11:20 p.m. x x x Dave Goff, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -39- MINUTES INDEX