The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/24/1980COMMISS{ONERS Regular Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Place: City Council Chambers d Time: 7:30 P.M. o n Date: April 24, 1980 y x y 3 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Present x x x x x Commissioners Cokas and Thomas were absent. Absent * * * Commissioner McLaughlin arrived At 8:45 p.m. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS i William R. Laycock; Current.Planoing Administrato Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Richard. Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Glenna Sutton, Secretary • Minutes Written By: Glenna Sutton Motion x i Motion was made to approve the minutes of the re- Ayes x x gular Planning Commission meeting of April 10, Abstain x 1980, as revised to include additional comments Absent x x x by Commissioner Allen on pages 8and 18. Request to consider an amendment to Chapter 20 of Item #1 the Newport Beach Municipal Codeas it pertains to required `parki.ng for residential uses, and the AMEND - acceptance of an Environmental Document. MONO. 5T5 INITIATED BY: City of Newport Bach CONTIN- UED TO Commissioner Allen posed a question, to which MAY 8, James Hewicker, Planning Directo�, replied that 1980 the Coastal Commission does not currently have a provision for trash enclosures. 0 me COMMISSIONERS d 7 x C C April 24, 1980 Of Beach, MINUTES ■ ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX 0 n U Commissioner Balalis suggested a Coastal Commission Staff and ind City of Newport Beach is creatin own standards, as a lot of the C sion standards have not been wor gested presenting these new stan Coastal Commission.with an.expla they would be more workable. Commissioner Beek expressed his Staff Report is not entirely acc terpretation of his recommendati proaching the cate that the a few of its astal Commis - able. He sug- ards to the ation as to why eeling that the rate in the in- ns. The Public Hearing continued regarding this item and Margo Skilling, 6610 West Ocean.Front, re- iterated that the Coastal Commission standards were guidelines only and that they did not want to prejudice standards that individual Cities would like to adopt. She expressed her desire that the City of Newport Beach adopt viable standards and present this to thelCoastal Commis- sion. She expressed her feeling;that one of the weaknesses of the existing standard is that it does not take into consideration;the various sizes of the buildings. She further expressed her feeling that there should bean incentive to stop the building of large buildings if every tine there is an extra 500 sq. ft. of! building, there is a requirement of another garage. She stated her preference that the number of garages be pre- dicated on the size of the building and not the number of bedrooms. She explained that in West Newport, they have no parking pr blem in the win- ter, but that in the summer ther are parking problems. She expressed her fee ing that the curet rent parking standards won't sol a this parking problem. She expressed her feeling that the cur- rent standards are taking away cheap winter hous- ing and summer recreational housing and turning the area into an exclusive R -1 area. Commissioner.Beek based on a.75' X the buildable are< feet than could bE commented that 30' lot shows tl i permits 33a ai a built using ti -2- the calculations it the 1.5 times litional square s proposal. COMMISSIONERS n = 0 April 24, 1980 MINUTES of Newport Beach ■ ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I i I INDEX Ll 0 i Gail Vinje Smith, Balboa Island Improvement As- sociation, appeared before the Planning Commis- sion and stated that they had prdtested a duplex that wanted only two parking spades and the gentleman was granted, at the suggestion of one of the members of the Coastal Coftission Staff, that he put three parking spaces across the back and encroach into the side yard.: She made a re- quest on behalf of the Association that the Plan- ning Commission reconsider threeparking spaces instead of four for duplexes, with the three spaces permitted across the back; one of them en- croaching in a carport into the side yard. She stated that people on Balboa Isl nd were very . happy to learn that if one of thl proposals were adopted, they would be gaining additional square footage of space, because if the third parking, space is a carport, it would not "count as part of the buildable. Commissioner Allen posed a question, to which Mrs. Vinje Smith.replied that the Association had no problem with using the side yard, even for tandem parking. In response to a question posed y Commissioner Beek, Mrs. Vinje Smith stated th t the issue was more the usability of the space than the freedom to the builder, but that she preferred the free- dom to the builder approach. In response to a question posed Allen, Mr. Hewicker replied that two times buildable,,except in t and th -at the Coastal Commission two times buildable; however, th order given to the 'City by the C only allows one and one -half bui for the present; a person who wa times buildable must apply to th proval.in Concept and then go to mission for a Coastal Permit. H ed that once the exclusion order they would be allowed to build t under the City standa.rd and the the Coastal Permit. -3- y Commissioner the.City allows R =1.5 District, ; now allowing t the exclusion istal Commission cable, so that is to. build two City for an Ap- the Coastal Com- further explain - is modified, then a times builda.ble ity could issue K 0x w �5omm 7 � lwll CDT. N April 10, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I III I I INDEX 0 Commissioner Balal the issue was not footage they would would be created. is expressed hi so much the amc loose,, but the feeling that qt of square envelope that Commissioner Beek stated that thelfigures he has presented have been the ones which assume that the,upstairs cannot overhang the !carport spaces. He explained that the Three- and -0'ne Plan would presume that one loses 96 sq. ft.from the down- stairs. Commissioner Balalis suggested th::at the overhang can be any size as long as it is ;open on two sides. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mrs. Vinje Smith stated that the general feeling of the Association was that the overhang was to be no farther than the setback. William Laycock, Current Planning, Administrator, stated that according to the Buillding Code, if the garage-is open or is a carporjt, the overhang cannot encroach into the side yarld. Commissioner Balalis stated his plreference that they adopt the minimum width of the parking space to b.e 17'6" rather than 18' and he length chang- ed to 19' for two garage spaces. Commissioner Balalis then posed a question; to which Mr. Laycock replied that wilth a 30' lot, the two car garage would have a mlinimum width of 18', so that the third space would be about 8'4" wide, at the most. Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that in order to make it work, that it sPuld be allowed that one side yard setback be 26 COMMISSIONERS Ab'�n�a N F Vi 7 CI April 24, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III III I I INDEX Motion Ayes Absent • 0 Commissioner .Beek stated his preference that car- ports not ever be counted as floor space. i Commissioner Haidinger suggested postponing dis- cussion-of this item to a study session. i The Planning Commission and Staff; then briefly discussed Commissioner Beek's six'. suggested amend ments to the Zoning Code. Commissioner Beek suggested that they repeal the prohibition on parking in both side yards. (Commissioner McLaughlin arrived lat 8:45 p.m.) x Motion was made that this item belcontinued to th x x x x regular Planning Commission meeting of May 8, * 1980, and that this item also be discussed at the Study Session on May 8, 1980. * * * Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the re- maining development in Office Sitee C for the Koll Center Planned Community, and thejacceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION: Office Site C of munity of Koll Ce cated easterly of vard between Camp Birch Street. Item #2 PHASING PLAN e Planned Com- APPROVED er Newport, lo- NDI- acArthur Boule- TIONALLY Drive and ZONE: P -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, com- mented that the applicant submitted an amendment to the, Traffic Phasing Plan dealing with the in- tersection of MacArthur Boulevardand Campus -5- s x m w 3 i N CD U) 7 MINUTES April 24, 1980 i of Newport Beach INDEX Drive. He stated that they had suggested an ad- ditional improvement that would lower the ICU from 1.0843 to 1.0011. In response to a question posed b{y Commissioner Haidinger, Mr. Talarico commentedlthat on the MacArthur Boulevard /Campus Drive ' ntersection ICU, the applicant's traffic supp rt consultant has suggested an additional impro ement, as the .existing intersection is .96 and .hat a year from the time the project is developed', the ICU for that intersection is computed at ;1.0843. I In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, James Hewicker, Planning Dhrector, replied that the only time solar water he'4ting was dis- cussed was at the time of the proposed building for Sutton Industries. j • In response to a question posed b Commissioner Haidinger, Richard Edmonston, Trafic Engineer, replied that he had reviewed this ll from the ex- tent of the numerical analysis ano that the only question that remains is whether 'possibly north of the intersection there is adegluate right -of- way existing, or further.right- of�way may neces- sarily be required to make the improvements. The discussion continued regardin this item and Ron Hendrickson, Irvine Company, 9ppeared before the Planning Commission and commepted on solar water heating, pointing out that on these build- ings they are required to meet thj State's Title 24 and that they always look at solar water heat- ing and if it is practical, feasible and energy - saving, they will consider incorpprating it. He added that there are cases where it is not feas ible and there are other means in;the building where they can save energy to a greater extent than making the expenditure on solar water heat- ing. He stated that they underwe t an analysis of their two four -story twin buildings at the Airport Business Center and disco ered that it Was not feasible to go to solar Ater heating in those two buildings. He expressed their feeling iris X p C EL R W 6 m Q 7 p W CD N 3 � 111 �T. tll April 24, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES 1 ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX r1 LJ that they meet the requirements for the Test of Reasonableness and that there is a reasonable correlation between the traffic projected at the time of the project completion and the capacity of the affected intersections. Ho"reminded the Planning Commission that the project has already been subjected to a rather substantial reduction by virtue of General Plan Amendment 79 -2, and that there was a 35%.reduction in:,the project at that time. He stated that this exceeds the re- ductions of any of the other projects in Koll Cen- ter. He explained that there arethree inter- sections that are affected by theaproject that are already in excess of .9: Campus Drive /Bris- tol Street, which ICU is only being increased by .0016; Campus Dr ive /MacArthur Boulevard, to which the Irvine Company is making improvements to both Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard, widening Campus Drive on the south side, east of the inter- section, and widening MacArthur Boulevard on the east side, south of the intersection at a cost of $115,000. He added that their additional proposal Js the suggestion that the northb and free right turn lane be converted to an opti'nal through lane, northbound, which would further reduce.the ICU. He stated.that this optionap through lane would cost about $5,000. Commissioner Balalis expressed hid concern that the intersection of Campus Drive /MacArthur Boule- vard is in desperate need of being improved im- mediately. Mr. Hendrickson expressed his feeling that the reason the improvements have not gone ahead is that the projects to which those improvements were tied haven't gone ahead. Heathen concluded that at the intersection of Campu$ Drive /Jamboree Road, there is currently an ICU o 1.1159 and watt the approval of this project, the ICU would be reduced to .9375. He also conclu ed that Staff suggests, and they concur, that the signalization of Birch Street /Jamboree Road be Considered by the Irvine Company and that they would consent to -7- COMMISSIONERS K r- m 0 W F > April 24, 1980 Of 2W, MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX n LJ • paying for half of this and Koll Center would pay for the other half. I Commissioner Allen inquired regarding fire pro- tection, to which Mr. Hewicker relied that they are undergoing discussion regarding closure of the fire station at the airport. Mr. Hendrickson stated his understanding that the'iNewport Beach Fire Department feels that the service to that area will be adequate. Mr. Hewicker confirmed that.were !the fire station at the airport closed, there would be adequate protection from the Newport BeachiFire Department to protect the Emkay Development and Koll Center. He added,.however, that the leveljof fire pro- tection from what currently exists would drop and the fire insurance rates for_the lbuildings in tha area would go up, but wouldn't necessarily affect the overall insurance ratings for:the City. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Edmonston replied that one of the conditions states that this is subject to the more precise determination of thejevents that have taken place in the meantime.II Commissioner Balalis sugg- ested.thlat the inter- section of Campus Drive /MacArthurBoulevard be completed prior to grading for the buildings. Mr. Edmonston informed the Planning Commission that the,State has a project at several intersec- tions along MacArthur Boulevard to upgrade the signals, that they currently hope to bid on in November of 1980. He added that -the project as shown in their plans now envisions the widening to have taken place at that time, agreed upon between the developer and the staite in discussing who was going to do what as far ajs the improve- ments. He explained that initially the.State was going to do the widening as well,, but was ap- prised that it had been conditioned upon the de- veloper in approximately the same: frame and it was worked out that the developer would do the widening and the City wouljd do the signal work. U COMMISSIONERS 00 O W dD W� CD N 7 ton ;' N 7 April 24, 1980 z t Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX 0 0 Commissioner Balalis again expressed.his concern that the improvements on this int rsection be done immediately. Mr. Hendrickson informed the Planning Commission that the Irvine Company is currenitly in the pro- cess of awarding a contract for the construction of the first 100,000 sq. ft. of that project, which is the 30% allowable building area, and in- cluded in the work on that projec is the widen - Ing on the south side of Campus-Drive and on the east side of MacArthur Boulevard.; In response to a comment made by ommissioner Balalis, Mr. Hendrickson commente that CalTrans will be involved in this project dnd it could slow down the process immediately; He stated that their intent is to make an effort to ensure that the.contractor starts that work as fast as possible. He concluded that theywould probably loose their bids on this project if they had to postpone construction until theseimprovements are completed. In response to a correction made Oy Commissioner Allen that the traffic figures are in error to th extent that they do not include all of the resi- dential project, Mr. Talarico replied that the Weston Pringle Report incorporates all of the in- dustrial and that there are separate discretion- ary actions that were part of thestipulated judgement on a residential project, so that it will have to meet certain furtheritests, as will the retail, service and commercial, which is subject to a separate traffic pha ing plan. He added that this is not consideredicommitted. Commissioner Allen stated her con erns about the facts related to this project, in luding: 1) 3,000 additional vehicle trips pe day; 2) exist ing and regional and committed tr ffic without project - related improvements indicates the future increase of the traffic problem in the area, and; 3) project and project - related improvements indi- cates that every intersection gets worse even -9- COMMISSIONERS n = w 0 Up 0 0 d D 7 =i N 7�C 41 J MINUTES April 24, 1980 of Newaort Beach ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 III I I INDEX 0 with said project - related improve�ents. She fur- ther expressed her concern with the future pro- blem of electricity and of fire protection. She then stated her desire to add an additional con- dition that the company contribute a portion to the circulation and transit fund ghat was es- tablished with City Council action on Civic Plaza based on a percentage as applied to Civic Plaza for similar unmitigated impacts. She added that in addition to this, the Civic Plaza contribution to this fund was $90,000, based on 234,706 sq. ft., or 38.3¢ a sq. ft. ..She stet d that Block C is 232,830 sq. ft. at 38.3¢ a s . ft., which .comes to $89,173. She expressed er feeling that the advantage and public benefit of this mitiga- tion is obvious: not only does it contribute to the City's transit and circulation fund and pro- vide money for road improvements,not necessarily the ones closest to the project itself, but it contributes to the overall improvement of traffic circulation in the City, which isto the benefit of the company as well as the City. She con - cluded that in addition, every do�lar contributed by the developer can qualify for federal or coun- ty matching funds, which is a double benefit to the citizens of the City as well is the Irvine Company. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Hendrickson replied that the cost of the road improvements that they will be making is $120,000. Mr. Edmonston added that new sig- nals will be installed at that intersection at $60,000, for which the state would not reimburse them. A representative from the Irvine Company explain- ed that this project includes new asphalt, needed because of pavement failure and c acks. In response to a question posed b Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Edmonston replied that the portion of the improvements that pertains'.to MacArthur Boulevard /Campus Drive that CalTrans will be per- forming primarily relates to the interconnect pro ject in that they are replacing tike existing traf I I -10- COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1980 n = CO d ;u = City of Newport Beach i/! 7 0 X 0 7 MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX 0 0 fic signal control equipment at etery intersec- tion in that stretch and there wi 1 also be some new poles at that intersection to: account for the double left turns. In response to another question posed by Commis- sioner Balalis, Mr. Edmonston replied that the work CalTrans is doing can be don@ independently of the Irvine Company's planned improvements. In response to yet another questi n posed by Com- missioner Balalis, Mr. :Edmonston replied that the.CalTrans project and the Irvine road improve - ments project are related, but thi project that is proposed by. the Irvine Companyis an interim project, 6ecau.se in addition to that project, the State project involves some r@ striping to provide the additional lanes. Headded that the width would be there at the completion of the Irvine Company's project, but the configuration of the lanes would be changed, as well as some of the signal equipment, by the State's project. He concluded that it is basically equipment and striping and not additional widening. In response to an.a- dditional question posed by Commissioner Bal-alis, Mr. Edmonston replied that the Irvine Company's Campus Drive/MacArthur Boule vard improvements would be an improvement of and by itself, but would be less than the total improvement shown in the consultant's report, be- cause of the striping and additional signal equipment that goes along with the striping change. In response to a question posed b Commissioner Haidinger, Mr. Edmonston replied by when the paving is done, the striping can be done, but when extra lanes are created, additional detec- tion in the street is required so that the new lanes will provide input to the t affic signal equipment, which must be coordinated with the State. He concluded that he anticipates that Cal /Trans will be letting the contract for the inter- connect in November, which Will include -11- MINUTES April 24, 1980 City of Newport Beach fwA 7� N x N 7 ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX new lanes and new sensors. Mr. Hendrickson stated that they could not start their project until the improvemerot of the widen- ing of Campus Drive /MacArthur Boulevard is made. He added that they are still waiting for a permit from CalTrans to begin work. Mr. Hewicker commented that on the Civic Plaza. project, the Irvine Company was required to do- nate to the City the $90,000 to be used in the vicinity of Newport Center. He added that it is not known how this fund will growor how they wil obtain state and federal matchingifunds, because the City is not at the present tine divided into zones to which these funds can be, assigned. He continued that the way it was initially set up was that the $90,000 would be used in the vicinit of Newport Center, so that as these funds are col • lected and more projects come down the road and the Planning Commission desires to add these kind of conditions, the money that must be given to the City by the developer is going to necessarily have to be spent in areas that will most benefit the project. Commissioner Hai.dinger stated his understanding that there is nothing that can beldone at this intersection that isn't already being done and that he did not understand how Commissioner Allen's concept could be applied specifically to this intersection. Commissioner Balalis stated his pieference that the $90,000 be spent to specifically solve the traffic problems, rather than putiinto a fund. r1 U Mr. Edmonston explained that for City has initiated procedures to provements as they have been need are other improvements that are s be made at the time of future dev -12- he most part th ake. these im- d and that ther heduled to lopments. MINUTES April 24, 1980 3 0 L.1 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX Mr. Hendrickson again appeared be Commission in response to Commiss proposal and asked whether the fi improvements of the half of the s boree Road /Birch Street, the impr Campus Drive /MacArthur Boulevard would be subtracted from her $89, ore the Plannin oner Allen's ures for the gnal at Jam - vement at nd the wall 00 figure. Commissioner Allen responded thatthis was not done in the case of Civic Plaza, ut was an ad- ditional mitigation measure to mi igate the in- tersections that were unmitigable`by any project - related improvement that was feas,ble. 0 -13- Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she could not support a motion that would require this of the applicant. Mr. Hendrickson stated that they do want to im -. prove the traffic conditions beyond what the im- • pacts of the projects are and tha they would be willing to accept what has been p oposed, although they are concerned as to what will happen with the circulation and transit fund and hey would ac- quiesce to these conditions with he understand- ing that the Planning Commission or City Council or Staff will soon designate how these funds could best be spent. Motion x :Motion was made that the PlanningCommission make Ayes K x. x Yx the following findings: Absent 1. That environmental documentation on this pro - posed project has been prepa.ed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K -3 and hat its contents have been considered in decisions on this project. 2. That the Phasing Plan is con$istent i with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport. 0 -13- MINUTES K April 24, 1980 0x wN. City of Newport Beach CD ROLL CALL I 11 I Jill I INDEX 3. That based on the Phasing P1 ing information submitted th is a reasonable correlation ed traffic at time of comple pacity of affected intersect That the applicant has taken tion in the preparation of h teristics in the design of h which either reduce traffic guide traffic onto less impa or through intersections in gested direction. n and support -. rewith, there etween project- ion and the ca- ons. into considera- s plan charac- s development eneration or t arterials he least con- and approve the Phasing Plan for the remaining development in Office Site C for the Koll Center Planned Community, subject to the following re- vised conditions: • 1. That prior to the occupancy on the site beyond the exist and 107,460 sq. ft. of new c the circulation system impro in the Traffic Report, dated 1980, Table 4, Page X, shall structed, (unless subsequent requires modification,theret tion systems improvements sh to the approval of the City neer). 0 That prior to the occupancy on the site beyond the exist and 107,460 sq. ft. of new c circulation system improveme committed projects listed on Traffic Report dated Februar the intersections listed in report shall also have been less subsequent project appr modification thereto. The c tem improvements shall be su proval of the. City Traffic E -14- f any buildings ng development nstruction, ements containe February 19, have been con - project approva The circula- 11 be subject raffic Engi- f any buildings ng development nstruction, the. is required of Page 4 of the 19, 1980, for Table 3" of saic onstructed, (un- val requires rculation sys- ject to the ap- gineer). MINUTES = April 24, 1980 rw Citv of Newport Beach 3 � � d N x N 7 INDEX 3. That all development on the.Oroposed project site shall be in conformance with the Traffi Phasing Plan and these condi }ions of appro- val. 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicants shall indicate to th Planning Director in writing that they under stand and agree to conditionlnos. 1 through 3 above. -15- 5. That the .architectural character and land- scape design established within the existing Koll Center Newport shall bemaintained. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the pro- ject shall be prepared by a licensed land- scape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the inst4llation of land . scaping with the proposed co struction sche- dule. (Prior to the occupan y of any struc- ture, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Depa tment that the landscaping has been install in accordance ,d with the prepared plan.) 7. That landscape plan.shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beachesand Recreation Department and approval of the Planning De- partment. I 8. The landscape plan shall include a mainten- ance program which controls the use of fer- tilizers and pesticides. 9. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasi on the use of drought - resist nt native vege- tation and be irrigated via it system designe to avoid surface runoff and over watering. 0. That erosion control measure$ shall be done on any exposed slopes within'.thirty days af- ter grading or as approved b, the Grading Engineer so as to reduce erosion potential. • I -15- C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES April 24, 1980 __1�o 0O 07 D y F x y" 3 3 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 11. Development of the site willlbe subject to a grading permit to,be approved by the Build- ing and Planning Departments J, Surface and subsurface drainage shall beprovided to the satisfaction of the BuildingDepartment and the Public Works Department.' 12. That the grading plan shall include a com -. plete plan for temporary andlpermanent drain age facilities, to minimize my potential impacts from silt, debris, a6d other water pollutants. 13. The grading permit shall include, if requir- ed, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and.sweep- ing program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. • 14. That the graded slopes at all intersections be designed to provide sightjdistance for a speed of 25 m.p.h. Landscaping, walls, and other physical obstructs ns shall be con sidered in the sight distance requirements. The sight distance requirements may be ap- propriately modified at non - ritical loca- tions, subject to approval o; the City Traf- fic Engineer. 15. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted with the grading permit applica- tion and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 0 16. That an erosion and siltatio control plan be approved by the Californi Regional Water Quality Control Board - Sant Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to said Board thirty (30) days prior to an construction activities. I. -16- COMMISSIONERS m 0 CU > 7 N Jac (/l 7 April 24, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES 1 ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I i I INDEX 0 Is 17. That the applicant provide fbr weekly vacuum sweeping of all parking areas. 18. That the applicant provide o basins (i.e. grease traps) i with the requirements of the partment, and provide for th The maintenance program shal by the Director of General S proved by the Building Depar 19. That grading shall be conduc with plans prepared by a Civ based on recommendations of and an engineering geologist the completion of a comprehe geologic investigation of th nent reproducible copies of as Built" grading plans on s sheets shall be furnished to Department. -site retention accordance Building De- ir maintenance. be reviewed rvices and ap- ment. ed in accordan 1 Engineer and soil engineer subsequent to sive soil and site. Perma- he "Approved andard size the Building 20. The velocity of concentrated runoff from-the project shall be evaluated a d erosive velo- cities controlled as part ofithe project design. 21. That final design of the project shall pro- vide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water using facilities. 22. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable mater- ial from other solid wastes hall be develop ed and approved by the Plann ng Department. 23. That should any resources be construction, that a qualifi or paleontologist evaluate t completion of construction a that all work on the site be dance with the City's Counci and K -6. -17- uncovered,durin d archaeologist e site prior to tivities, and done in accor- Policies K -5 COMMISSIONERS O M O m N y O In y MINUTES April 24, 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 24. That the final design of on -site pedestrian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning De- partment. 25. That prior to the issuance o any building permits, the applicants shal demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Plan ing Department that all practicable measures to reduce to- tal and peak hour traffic (iye. car pool /van pool, staggered employee work hours, tenant mix) have been or will be taken. 26. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said shall be at= tenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualifi d acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning • Department. 27. That the Fire Department access shall be ap- proved by the Fire Department. 28. That all. buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. i 29. That a "defensible space" concept-shall be incorporated to the construc ion and design of the project and be review d and approved by the Police Department pri r to the is- suance of any grading and bu lding permits. 30. The proposed project shall incorporate and internal securing system (i.e. security guards, alarms, access limits after hours) that shall be reviewed by th Police and Fire Departments and approve by the Planning Department. 31. That prior to the occupancy f the proposed project, a traffic signal sh uld be installed at the intersection of Jambo ee Road and am 0 Motion Ayes Noes Absent u COMMISSICNERS 7�v p3p��x(�p i� 3 N JC V1 MINUTES April 24, 1980 of Newport Beach Birch Street. Further, that50% of the fund ing for the said traffic signal shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 32. That all applicable conditions of Resubdivi- sion No. 603 be met. 33. That prior to the issuance.ofi any building permit authorized by the apprfoval of this Traffic Phasing Plan, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director, a sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related td the project in the subject area, but not toexceed $11,000, to be used for the constructiion of a wall . on the westerly side of Jambd,ree Road betwee Eastbluff Drive and Ford Road. 34.. That the work at the intersedtion of MacAr- thur Boulevard /Campus Drive qe completed prior to starting construction on any build- ing on the remaining 70 %. Ii is understood that said improvement is subject to CalTrans approval of the permit. 35. That the sum of $90,000 be pr:;ovided for circulation and traffic improvements to intersections as specified in Volume 2, Page 7 of the addendum to tho Environmental Impact Report as shown on th City's Master Plan of Circulation consiste t.with the Gen- eral Plan, with priority giv n to improve- ments within the vicinity of! the project, if feasible. Motion was made that the PlanningCommission make the following findings:. 1. That a Draft Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development for The Irvine Company property as been prepare in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act and that its contents -19- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES April 24, 1980 arm o Cb'w;a 5 y T N 1 City of Newport Beach j ROLL CALL INDEX have been considered in the decisions on this project. 2. That based upon the information contained within the environmental documents, the pro- posed project will have a significant en- vironmental impact, the project subject to the conditions listed below incorporates sufficient mitigation measurOs so that the economic and social benefitsto the commun- ity override any presently apticipated nega- tive environmental effects of the project. Motion x and accept the Environmental Impact Report and. Ayes x x x x recommend that the City Council accept same. Noes K I Absent * Commissioner Beek stated that he 4ould not approve an amendment to an Environmental Impact Report which he felt was totally inadequ.te, as it fails to address the fact that they arelcreating more . • employment in an area which has tbo much employ- ment and too little housing, that/ it is creating more traffic in an area that is already traffic - impacted, and where the surrounding intersections seem to have no hope of being rescued from unsa- tisfactory conditions. He also noted that at the time the Koll Center development plan was approv- ed, it was vigorously opposed by the Irvine Com- pany on the grounds that it wouldlcreate traffic which the transportation system could not bear. * * * The Planning Commission recessed at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened at 10:10 p.m.' * * * Request to consider an amendment of the Newport Beach Municipal Co tains to permitting residential u District, and the acceptance of a Document . INITIATED BY: City of Newport Be -20- o Chapter 20.42 e as it Per- es in the M -1 -A Environmental ach Item #3 AMEND - MEIT N0. 542 APPROVED C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES April 24, 1980 la NI City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I III Jill I I INDEX Motion x 111Motion was made to.accept the Negative Declara_.'. Ayes x x x x tion, approve Amendment No. 542 acid recommend Absent * * that the City Council adopt same.I Request to establish grade for the purpose of Item #4 measuring height for a proposed b lcony in con- junction with the remodeling of a existing ESTAB- single family dwelling. LISHMENT OF GRADE LOCATION: A portion of Tract. "A ", Corona del Mar, located at 3769 Ocean Boule- APPROVED vard, on the southrlesterly side of Ocean Boulevard, between Poinsettia Avenue and Poppy Avenue in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 • APPLICANTS: Mr. and Mrs. John (. Valentine, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Same as Applicants In response to a question posed b, Commissioner Allen, James.Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that at the completion of this work it will be below the level of the existing residence. Motion x Motion was made that grade be established at 67.5 Ayes x x z x feet MSL at 3709 Ocean Boulevard for the purpose Absent * of measuring height for a proposed balcony in con junction with the remodeling of an existing singl family dwelling. i Request to establish an automobil rental %cili- Item #5 ty in the M -1 -A District. A modi ication to the Zoning Code is also requested, si ce the proposed USE PER - development includes the installa. ion of a 3 foot MIT N0. high ± ground sign that is located in the require 1935 • 15 foot front yard setback along the.Campus Drive frontage of the site. I APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY -21- = April 24, 1980 3 x W v City of Newport Beach LOCATION: Lot 17, Tract No. 4040 Campus Drive, easterly side of C tween Dove Street across Campus Driv Wayne Airport. ZONE: M -1 -A MINUTES 201, located at on the south - mpus Drive be- nd Quail Street from the John APPLICANT: Michael W. Mayfield and Larry D. Hooper, dba. Budget; Rent A Car; Newport Beach OWNER: Robert P. Forbes, Santa Ana Robert Burnham, Assistant City Atiorney, advised ;that there had been a question asl.to whether the applicant qualified as a lessee ag required by Section 20.80.030 of the Municipal Code and that • they had occasion to talk with some of the people involved and to review all the doduments and that it is their opinion that the applicant at this time qualifies as a lessee. He added that there is some dispute as to the validity of the sub- lease pursuant to which.the applicant has a lease hold interest among the parties tat have an in- terest in that property. He suggested incorporat ing two additional conditions: 1) hold harmless agreement that would protect the dity from any liability; and 2) condition the existance of the permit on the continued validity cif the lease- hold agreement of the applicant. The Public Hearing continued regarding this item and Robert Morrison, Counsel for the Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to state their concurrence with the conditions as indicate in the Staff Report. j George Fruehling appeared before he Planning Con mission and stated that he had an undivided half interest in the property. He added that they hol -22- INDEX ln. F N MINUTES April 24, 1980 i City of Newport Beach 1 ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX 1 E the master lease. He stated thatthe sub- lessee needed more room and moved out and the property was vacant for several months. Hee{{ added that the attempted to rent it and he gave Nis consent, which he could not withhold, legally. He expres- sed his feeling that they made this application without his consent. He explained that they signed a consent only subject to the Irvine Com- pany's approval, which so states fn their master lease that they have a right to approve any sub - lease or sub- lessee that is made do that proper- ty. He expressed his feeling that everyone that is part of a transaction must first sign every - thing. He continued with his feeling that below his signature was a paragraph tha required the Irvine Company's consent, and when it came to the Irvine Company's attention, they did not sign because it does not conform to the uses on the master lease. He stated that he Was told by a representative of.the Irvine Company that any in- fraction on the use of this lease that did not conform to the master lease wouldcause a null an void situation on his master leas_ He concluded that the applicant submitted the application with out the final paragraph.requiringthe Irvine Com- pany's approval and that approvallof this appli- cation would jeopardize his positilon in the lease Mr. Burnham advised that the applicant does not need the owner's consent and thatithe owner or a lessee of the property can be the applicant. He added that the Irvine Company could possibly take some action, but.that at the present time the sub sub - lessee has a right to possession. He contin- ued that it is the Planning Commission's purview to look at the application and consider the land use and not consider questions of legal liability in and.amongst the parties that have an interest in. this property. He concluded that by granting a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission is not taking action to breach an lease. In response to a question posed by Commissioner.. Beek, Mr..Morrison again appeared before the;Plan ning Commission and agreed that i is their feel- ing that this is a valid use undett the lease and -23- COMMISSIONERS K 0d �m03n April 24, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES that any legal action the Irvine Company might take against them would not be successful and they would be able to succeed wit the the car rental business. Motion x Motion was made that the PlanningCommission make Ayes x K x x the following findings: Noes x Absent * * 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. Fur- thermore, the proposed development is Simi- lar to.other automobile rental agencies that have been approved by the P1 nning Commis- sion adjacent to the Orange Bounty Airport. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. • 3. The Police Department has indicated that the do not contemplate any problems. 4. That the approved sign in th' required 15 foot front yard setback. will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be de- trimental to the health, safety, peace, com- fort and general welfare of dersons residing or working in the neighborhood of such pro- posed use or.be detrimental qr injurious to property and improvements inithe neighbor- hood or the general welfare of the City.and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 5. The approval of Use Permit N'. 1935 will not under the circumstances of tis case, be de- trimental to the health, saf ty, peace, mor- als, comfort and general wel are of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the gen- eral welfare of the City. -24- INDEX COMMISSIONERS �m c �Q 0001D i W x to 7 April 24, 1980 Of Beach MINUTES and approve Use Permit No. 1935, subject to the following revised conditions: 1. That development shall be insubstantial con forma,nce with the approved plot plan and floor plan and sign elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the on -site parking spades shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not lessthan four inche wide in accordance with the approved parking layout. Said approved plan includes the de- letion of parking space no. 3. 3. That no more than seven.rent6l automobiles shall be permitted on the sitie at any one time. INDEX • 4. That all vehicles shall be limited to pas- senger automobiles only. 5. That no maintenance or cleaning j of automo- biles shall be permitted on the site. 6. That the proposed double -facdd ground sign shall not exceed a height of!3 feet nor a length of 5 feet with a maxi um area of 15 sq. ft. per face. Furthermo e, the subject . sign shall be set back at le st 5 feet from the street right -of -way. 7. That there shall be a hold- hirmless agreemen between the owner and the Ci$y that shall protect the City from any liability. 8. That the existence of the perPmit shall be based on the continued validity of the lease- hold agreement of the applicant. Request to create three parcels of land for con - Item #6 mercial development, the acceptance of an offsite • barkin.g agreement for a portion of the required RESUB- parking spaces for the Bank of tiev%port.complex, DIVISION NO. 654 and the - acceptance >of an Environmental Document. -25- COMMISSIONERS 3 0 C 00�n 3 X n 3 0 x m 7 April 24, 1980 Of MINUTES ROLL CALL I 1 1 1 III I 1 INDEX 0 LOCATION: Lot 148, Tract No. at Dover Drive, on side of Dover Driv 16th Street. ZONE: APPL,ICANT:. OWNER: A -P -H Bank of Newport, N 1218, located CONTIN- the westerly UED TO southerly of MAY 22, 1980 port Beach Lawrence K. Harvey,; et al, Corona del Mar In response to a question posed b Haidinger, James Hewicker, Planni plied that there is an existing o below the bank building that the has space in and as the leases ex building, they will be taking ove building and removing the portion in front. Commissioner g Director, re- fice building ank of Newport ire in .that use of said of it which is Commissioner Beek stated his understanding that this is actually a portion of theRaleigh Hills property. Mr. Hewicker commented brat the Bank of Newport is requesting to lease the office building and a small parking area. Motion x Motion was made to continue this item to the re- Ayes x x x x gular Planning Commission meeting!of May 22,, Absent * 1980, as the applicant was not present. Request to change the operational characteristics Item #7 of the existing Puffin's Restaurant facility in the C -1 District to include the service of beer USE PER - and wine. MIT NO. X36 LOCATION: Lots 5 and 6, Bloc P, Tract No. 323, located at 30 0 East Coast APPROVED Highway, on the no theasterly cor- OL WDI — • ner of East Coast ighway and Jas- TIONALLY mine Avenue in Corona del Mar. -26- K 0 Sao m°w_° i MINUTES April 24, 1980 I City of Newport Beach ZONE: C -1 INDEX APPLICANT: Puffin's, Inc. OWNERS: George J. and Pearl Kantor, Santa Monica I The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Bruce Warden, President.of Puffin's, Inc., appeared before the Planning Commission and sta- ted his concurrence with the conditions as in- dicated in the Staff-Report, withlthe exception of condition no. 5, stating that at this time it was difficult for him to get permission from the owner to dedicate the 10' radius corner cut- off to the public. 2. The project will not have an, significant environmental impact. �il 3. The Police Department has innicated that t • do not contemplate any problems. -27- In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Richard Edmonston; Traffc Engineer, • replied that this corner cutoff dedication would be utilized at some point in the future and not at the present time,. i Commissioner Balalis suggested reviewing the use permit in two years, at which poifit in time the applicant should have permission from the owner for the street dedication. i i Mr. Warden explained that he is d4aling with an owner and a lessor that are not involved with, Puffin's and have no personal intBrest in it. Motion x i Motion was made that the PlanninglCommission make. Ayes x x x the following findings: Absent 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have an, significant environmental impact. �il 3. The Police Department has innicated that t • do not contemplate any problems. -27- MINUTES 0 0 and approve Use Permit No. 1936, following revised conditions- ubject to the 1. That development shall be insubstantial con formance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. That the trash container located in.the parking lot shall be relocated to a site tha does not obstruct a parking space and is not visible from adjacent residences or streets. 3. That the restaurant facilityjshall be limit- ed to the hours feom.6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight.. 4. That employees of the.restaur;a.nt facility shall park on -site at all times. 5. That the applicant shall utillize his best efforts in the next two year to obtain the dedication to the public of 10' radius corner cutoff at the corner f East Coast Highway and Jasmine Avenue, �t which time this use permit shall be reviewed by the Modifications Committee. Request to permit the construction of a three - story office building that exceeds' the basic height limit, within the 32/50 Folt Height Li-. mitation District, and the accept nce of an En- vironmental Document. awe Item #8 USE PER- MI_TN 0 1939 E 5 � April 24, 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX I 4. The approval of Use Permit Nd. 1936 will not under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,, morals, comfort and general Welfare of per- sons residing and working inthe neighbor - hood or be detrimental or injiurious to pro- perty and improvements in the neighborhood or the general. welfare of they City. 0 0 and approve Use Permit No. 1936, following revised conditions- ubject to the 1. That development shall be insubstantial con formance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. That the trash container located in.the parking lot shall be relocated to a site tha does not obstruct a parking space and is not visible from adjacent residences or streets. 3. That the restaurant facilityjshall be limit- ed to the hours feom.6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight.. 4. That employees of the.restaur;a.nt facility shall park on -site at all times. 5. That the applicant shall utillize his best efforts in the next two year to obtain the dedication to the public of 10' radius corner cutoff at the corner f East Coast Highway and Jasmine Avenue, �t which time this use permit shall be reviewed by the Modifications Committee. Request to permit the construction of a three - story office building that exceeds' the basic height limit, within the 32/50 Folt Height Li-. mitation District, and the accept nce of an En- vironmental Document. awe Item #8 USE PER- MI_TN 0 1939 MINUTES K = April 24, 1980 a0 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX i LOCATION: Parcel, 1 of Parcel Map 142 -41 (Re- APPROVED subdivision No. 63 ),.located at CONDI- 3300 Irvine Avenue on the south- TIONALLY easterly side of I�vine Avenue, northeasterly of Orchard Drive, across Irvine Avenue from the Newport Beach GolfCourse facility ZONE: A -P -H APPLICANT OWNER: Lee & Strock Archi port Beach cts, Inc., Newport- Irvine Assdciates, Newport Beach By way of explanation, James Hewi • Director, stated.that this situat attention of the Staff on April 2 time he was informed by Robert Le Planning Administrator, that he h phone call from a resident in the Heights area complaining about a building that was under construct ner of Irvine Avenue and Orchard of the height limit. He added th spoken with the Plan Checker for in an attempt to determine whethe been issued in error. He express that the permit had been issued i much as the plan showed a buildin elevation, when the basic buildin tion was 32'. Mr Hewicker explai spoke with Al Auer, informing him there was a problem in the height He stated that Mr. Auer expressed there was not a problem, that he tect, Mr. Strock, had discussed t tation in the area several times Staff and that Staff was satisfie ing had been designed in accordan height limits required by the Cit that he subsequently met with Mr. • which time he wrote a letter and to Mr. Auer, instructing them to -29- ker, Planning on came to the 1980, at which ard, Advance d recieved a Santa Ana hree -story on on the cor- rive in excess t he had then his project the permit had d his feeling error, inas- 38' above pad height limita- ed that he then that he felt of the building his feeling tha nd his archi- e height limi- ith the City's that the build e with the He explained Strock, after ade a phone cal top work on the COMMISSIONERS ME XWw MINUTES April 24, 1980 of Newport Beach building.. He added that the applicant then made application to the City for this use permit to exceed the basic height limit. He stated that they then worked out a hold - harmless agreement among the City Attorney, Planning Department, th Applicant and the Applicant's Attorney, to allow the Applicant to proceed with consjtructibn on th first and second levels of the bu.i1lding. 'He ex- plained that in the interim the Airport Land Use Commission has met and consideredthe project an voted to approve it at a seven tozero vote, and the Applicant made application tojthe F.A.A. He concluded that this is a project i:.n which the Planning Commission has discretionary action and the ability to approve the projects if they can make the four findings for the office building to exceed the basic height limit. Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, advised that their position with respect to the City's • liability is uncertain at this time, but they feel after initial research that the City has no liability either in damages orlany restrictio on its ability to enjoin further Construction, but that they would prefer that tle Planning Com mission not consider.potential liability as a factor in whether or not the use permit should be granted, as it is not a valid consideration. The Public Hearing was opened regprding this itei and Taylor Grant., 1985 Port Edwards Circle, Ap- plicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the project was initiated in Oc- tober 1978 and has been through approximately seven public hearings. He furtherT stated that some neighbors in the area have some concerns about the building, traffic, airp rt noise and aesthetics. He expressed his fee ing that they have tried to be sympathetic to t ixisting e fact that they were putting up an office bu lding in an office area that was adjacent to resi- dential. He concluded that the C unty is in the process of studying the entire ar a as to what i will become and that the only current rezones in the area have been to office- comm #rcial compati- ble both in height and in use to ghat they are proposing. He expressed his feeling that the re I -30- COMMISSIONERS K 0d om� WC� WX� 0 MINUTES April 24, 1980 of Newport Beach issue is the building's position iin relationship to its ability to apply for a use permit and.its location on the property, and therefore its im- pact, given the fact that it now ils necessary for them to ask for this use permit. iHe requested that the Planning Commission focus! in on the posi tion on the property as it relates; to the sur- rounding properties. Arthur Strock, Lee & Strock Architects, appeared before the Planning Commission an explained that dimensions given relating to the property lines apply to the north and east. He sltated that the City boundary forms a peninsula on this piece of property, that to the north within the City boun- dary, there are a series of smalltwo -story of- fice buildings and to the east, the County is zoned R -4 where there is a 35' heilght limit which can be exceeded by mechanical penthouses, etc. He added that the current use of the land is a series of small houses. He stated that to the south there are horse stables andsingle family residences, zoned A- 1,.with a 35' height limit. He related that while they are exgeeding the height limit, they are, in fact, ]70' away from the nearest existing structure. He express- ed his feeling that the neighbors were concerned with the fact that most buildingsof this type have mechanical penthouses, but hel assured the Planning Commission that this building does not, but that the mechanical equipmentis stored in a basement. He concluded that they thought they were conforming to the building code. Commissioner Haidi.nger posed a qu stion, to which Mr. Hewicker replied that not to ave exceeded th basic height limit for this building would have required either a parking structu e.on the pro perty or depressed parking under the building. Commissioner Beek posed a questio Strock replied that they could no ically built a three -story buildi rent height limit, but would rath -31- to which Mr. have econom- with the cur - have built a INDEX COMMISSIONERS n = m 3 0 6 D 7 i N 7C tp 7 April 24, 1980 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLLCALLI III Jill INDEX 0 two -story building with a mechanical penthouse. In response to a second question pbsed by Commis- sioner Beek, Mr. Strock replied that the over- sight had occured due to a breakdowyrn in communi -. cation between the'Staff and themslelves and that some things had not been put down in writing. i In response to a question posed byiCommissioner Allen, Mr. Hewicker replied that on this site, with a pitched roof, 37' would be 'allowed, that in Koll Center, 375' is allowed, as long as the air space envelope around the airport is not pe- netrated, and that a. similar height limit pre - vails in Emkay. Mr. Strock commented that there was some confusio as to what was to be used as a reference elevatio for determining the height of the ;building. He informed the Planning Commission that the height of the building below the elevation of the proper ty line on Orchard.Avenue is 351, which they used as a reference. He added that thesite, before being graded, had a natural rain basin on it. He concluded that the site has been graded so that 3' to 4' has been taken off the high end of the site and the dirt was placed on the north end of the site. He also concluded thatithey had mea- sured from a reference elevation taken from grade existing adjacent to the building on the front yard. Mr. Hewicker added that the entire! area of the City northerly of the east -west exitension of Bristol Street is in a 375' height' limitation zon and the majority of the area south; of Bristol Street, between Bristol Street and Mesa Drive, is in the County. He concluded that it is only that little peninsula that protrudes down along Irvine Avenue that is in the City and is in the 32/50 foot height limitation zone. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Hewicker explained thatithe project that was before the City a coupleof years ago -32- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES April 24, 1980 -i 0 0 g n � � F X W =1 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 0 I� U was the traffic phasing plan and that there has been a resubdivision, modification, abandonment proceeding, and now this use permit. Dennis O'Neill, Attorney for the Applicant, ap- peared before the Planning Commission and ex- pressed his feeling that it would not be approp- riate to judge this matter on thejbasts of lia- bility; however, he stated that he would not want any of those statements made by Mr. Burnham to reflect their acquiescence or waiver of any of his client's rights or remedies regarding this matter. He expressed his feelingithat there is an additional element that should be considered in this matter; that is, fairness. Richard Trufray, Upper Bay Homeowners and Renters Association, appeared before the Planning.Com- mission and stated that they had n;ot been noti- fied of this hearing. He expressejd his feeling that the project has an extreme enlvironmental impact. He added that the properties on Birch Street are going to be shaded by tjhis building. He continued that,previous to the :grading for thi building, the natural flow of rain! ran off toward., Irvine Avenue, but now there is albarrier which . causes the runoff to run to the residence at 20181 Birch Street (southwest). I He stated that traffic in this area is intoler -.: able and approval of this project will increase traffic. He concluded that the viiew at 2022 Orchard Avenue has been totally cut off. He also concluded that they do not yet have the fi- nal recommendation from F.A.A: i i Jim Mitchell, 1300 Dove Street, a the Planning Commission and state disagreements have to do pr1maril relative to the traffic problem. whether they were providing adequ expressed his feeling that there a traffic hazard if there were a between the two driveways. -33- eared before: that their with the EIR. e questioned e parking. He uld be less of eater distance COMMISSIONERS � I 5 o w a 0 7C x 0 N 7 N i 7 ROLL CALL • 9 MINUTES April 24, 1980 of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Hewicker replied that; he was not aware that there was a problem witlh drainage, parking, lateral support of the feince, or an en- croachment onto the adjoining Property. Linda Dalton, P.O. Box 1091, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that she did not receive a public hearing notice. She stated that they are zoned A -1 and are an equestrian com munity and that this building has 'a great impact on their environment. Mrs: Batham, 20451 Upper Bay'Drivej, appeared be- fore the Planning Commission and sitated that the property was fenced in and Acacia �treet, was - blocked at the time of ,gradi.ng. S'he expressed her disagreement with several statements that had been made in the Staff Report. Sh stated her understanding that cross -beams on the third floor had been put in place following read- tagging. She stated that she had brought this matter to the attention of the Airport Land Use ;and F.A.A., be- cause she felt that this use was not compatible with these organizations. She stated her under- standing that there are no three - story buildings in the area and stated her preference that this be a two -story building. She concluded by ex- pressing her feeling that this project is detra -- mental to the health and.safety of the neighbors,. and that it will:set a precedent in the area. She also concluded by stating that additional` cars will increase smog, traffic, noise and pol- lutants. Mr. Childs, 20316 Birch Street, apjpeared before` the Planning Commission and stated' that he had no objections to this building. H,e expressed his feeling that the airport is gojing to condemn this land and that they should have the oppor- tunity to sell it commercially. Hie relayed his feeling that he did not understand] why there were so many complaints regarding onlyj2'. He stated his understanding that the higher the building is -34- __41! �Ww au 0 MINUTES April 24, 1980 of Newport Beach the less the cost is to build. Jack Maradlein appeared before the!Planning.Com- mission and stated that he is having a problem with drainage, due to the grading pn the appli cant's site. In response to a.question posed by!Mr. Maradlein Mr. Hewicker replied that the building, in terms of its limitations as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, is measured from the original grade of the site, and not from the grade as it exists today, and one can depress a pieceiof ground and build a higher building. Mr. Maradlein then stated his preference that this issue not be decided until they obtain a response from F.A.A. He expressedi his feeling that the height of this building will cause tur- bulence to the airplanes flying overhead. Don Holsten, Orchard Drive, appea Planning Commission to express hi the structure was graded as low a allow for three stories and that fact from the beginning that they beyond the height limitation. He concern that the City of.Newport parking lots out of main thorough the summer. Mr. Grant again appeared before t mission and commented that there intentional intent on their part height limitation, then inquired were any questions., to which Comm inquired of Mr. Burnham what appr take in a decision regarding this d before the feeling that possible to was a known ere ,going xpressed his ach creates res during e Planning Com as never any o exceed the hether there ssioner Allen ach she should item. Mr. Burnham replied, advising that the building must be looked at relative to the;four findings -35- ROLL CALL Motion 0 April 24, 1980 Of as required by the Code. He took Mr. O'Neill's comment, expressing that this was not a question of eq the most .important thing that can look at the building, look at the regarding the lot size, surroundin and the public hearing testimony a whether the building as proposed c the provisions of the Ordinances o Mr. Burnham further commented that portant aspect of this project is Planning Commission can.make the f this is the real issue. Commissioner Beek suggested an exe to which Mr. Burnham adivsed that sion is inappropriate because liti point is far in the future and thi mission would not control that lit further advised that the l.itigatio the Brown Act is extended only to cil. In response to a question posed b, Beek, Mr. Burnham replied that if is not granted, the City is force in time to try to enjoin further the building, and,if the City tak action in that vein, they would a there may be a cross- complaint fo also that the applicant would rai defense. He expressed.his feeliri plicant does not have a defense t in this case. He further express that the ammunity .provisions of t Code that relate to the issuance were just validated in another re fall within the ammunity provisio Motion was made that the Planning the findings as indicated in Exhi Staff.Report and approve Use Perm subject to the conditions as indi "A" of the Staff Report, with the that the third floor be deleted f half of the building. -36- MINUTES xception to is feeling ity; but that e done is to nformation residences d determine mes within the City. the most im- hat if the ndings, that utive session, xecutive ses- ation at this Planning Com- gation. He exception in he City Coun- Commissioner he use permit at that point nstruction of affirmative icipate that damages and an equitable that the ap- t will prevail his feeling Government permits that nt case, will in this case. ommission mak t "A" of the No .'..1939, ted in Exhibi dded conditio m the north INDEX COMMISSICN�IERS � s MINUTES April 24, 1980 of Newport Beach Commissioner Allen stated that shejwould support the Motion, because she felt that the architect would be able to accomplish this. Commissioner Balalis expressed his feeling that either the entire building should be supported or that the entire third floor should be torn down. Ayes x x Motion was then voted on, which MOTION FAILED. Noes K x I Absent * Motion was then made that the Plan ing Commission Motion x make the findings as indicated in xhibit "A" of Ayes x K x the Staff Report and approve Use P rmit No. 1939, Noes x subject to the conditions as indic ted in Exhibit Absent * * "A" of the Staff Report. I * * * ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDI- TIONAL 000tion Motion was made to set for public hearing on BUSINESS Ayes x x May 22, 1980, an amendment to conshder amending Noes x x the height of residential development on steep Absent * lots. i -37- Debra Al Planning City of I a n, Secretary omm.ission wport Beach P